"Currants Bw..."

[Letters]

http://newsthump.com/2016/11/10/alan-sugar-considering-his-options/

:lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

Just listen to these libtards. They really don't get that their "cool" doesn't extend beyond their bubble. The real world goes on around them but they are oblivious to it. Everyone is uneducated compared to them. Listen to them and figure out who's dumb.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1hg6VrXcjg

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Just listen to these libtards. They really don't get that their "cool" doesn't extend beyond their bubble. The real world goes on around them but they are oblivious to it. Everyone is uneducated compared to them. Listen to them and figure out who's dumb.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1hg6VrXcjg

Did anyone ask them if they actually voted?

[Niall_Quinn]

Did anyone ask them if they actually voted?

Yeah. Earlier. Most of them said they supported Bernie and voted for Hillary. I had a friend (well, somebody I was forced into the same vicinity as through work) who interned for Prescott when he ran his rotten campaign and got his arse kicked by Blair. He was like these 'tards, total histrionics that only abate when they need to take a sip of champagne. A real die hard BNP foot soldier would probably be my least favourite political type to get stuck in a lift with, apart from a right wing leftist. There's nothing worse than a right wing left winger.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I must admit I find the histrionics somewhat difficult to stomach, total lack of self-reflection given the criticism of the petulance shown by the Right when Obama got elected both times.

It's a tribal thing, people seem to pick political sides like they would football teams and wrap themselves in the cloak of certainty and identity they derive from it

How Trump behaves now he realises he is representing an entire country remains to be seen, he seems almost chastened in being conciliatory but one wonders how long such discipline can actually last.

[Power n Glory]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-election-muslim-ban-immigrants-website-statement-removed-a7408466.html

Sounds familiar. :lol:

[Kano]

The tram accident is pretty grim. I can't remember the speed it takes that corner but I know it does bomb down the tracks on certain parts. My sons best mate was on there and had his arm split open by glass and he knew the 19 yr old that died.

Meanwhile Miley Cyrus cries to the world because the spoilt little cunt picked the wrong side in an election.

[Niall_Quinn]

I must admit I find the histrionics somewhat difficult to stomach, total lack of self-reflection given the criticism of the petulance shown by the Right when Obama got elected both times.

It's a tribal thing, people seem to pick political sides like they would football teams and wrap themselves in the cloak of certainty and identity they derive from it

How Trump behaves now he realises he is representing an entire country remains to be seen, he seems almost chastened in being conciliatory but one wonders how long such discipline can actually last.

As I have been saying, the left needs to reclaim the left from these socialite cuckoos. I have plenty of time for the real left, though I don't agree with a lot of the stuff they tag on to the fundamentals and can't figure out why they have to carry so much trivial baggage along with them. But as a stage we could pass through towards genuine liberty we stand a better chance with the left than the corporate hijacked right. I think the tribalism you refer to is fake, simply a way for frat houses on the same campus to distinguish themselves and that's why they do it so noisily, in case anyone notices the fundamental similarities. This is a poor substitute for the genuine ideological differences that used to drive the far more serious debates and struggles from the past.

Here's a marxist I'd rather listen to than any of those shitty, liberal "progressives" on the centre left (aka authoritarianism) or those antichrist type religious materialists on the centre right (aka authoritarianism). It's a calm put-down for all the hair tearing fags who have shit a brick as they await the arrival of Hitler Trump at their door. If anything Trump will probably do less than the almost comatose Obama.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0IwIOUg_Cs

[Goonermerree]

What is wrong with people theses days? I would never have voted for Trump in a million years but a democratic process voted him in, accept it and get over it! It's just like the remain voters here, keep having a referendum until we get the result we want. Stop being spoilt brats, just do what you can to make your own life and it's environs fair and happy.

[GP]

What is wrong with people theses days? I would never have voted for Trump in a million years but a democratic process voted him in, accept it and get over it! It's just like the remain voters here, keep having a referendum until we get the result we want. Stop being spoilt brats, just do what you can to make your own life and it's environs fair and happy.

While I agree the crying for 7 thousand years is a bit pathetic, so is the 'you lost get over it' attitude.

[Goonermerree]

While I agree the crying for 7 thousand years is a bit pathetic, so is the 'you lost get over it' attitude.

No it's not, there's absolutely nothing they can do about it and smashing windows helps nothing.

[GP]

Sure, but if you live in a democratic society, you absolutely have the right to discuss, debate or even protest if you wish.

The minute that's no longer allowed, what does that make us?

[Goonermerree]

Sure, but if you live in a democratic society, you absolutely have the right to discuss, debate or even protest if you wish.

The minute that's no longer allowed, what does that make us?

I'm not saying people shouldn't prostest, but smashing windows over a democratic vote is not a protest that a democratic society should be having.

[Power n Glory]

As I have been saying, the left needs to reclaim the left from these socialite cuckoos. I have plenty of time for the real left, though I don't agree with a lot of the stuff they tag on to the fundamentals and can't figure out why they have to carry so much trivial baggage along with them. But as a stage we could pass through towards genuine liberty we stand a better chance with the left than the corporate hijacked right. I think the tribalism you refer to is fake, simply a way for frat houses on the same campus to distinguish themselves and that's why they do it so noisily, in case anyone notices the fundamental similarities. This is a poor substitute for the genuine ideological differences that used to drive the far more serious debates and struggles from the past.

Here's a marxist I'd rather listen to than any of those shitty, liberal "progressives" on the centre left (aka authoritarianism) or those antichrist type religious materialists on the centre right (aka authoritarianism). It's a calm put-down for all the hair tearing fags who have shit a brick as they await the arrival of Hitler Trump at their door. If anything Trump will probably do less than the almost comatose Obama.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0IwIOUg_Cs

Good video and thanks for the share. But why have you shared this video? In fact, hasn't Trump pulled off the ultimate distraction with all the division he has caused? It's gone from Occupy Wall Street to total division other there.

Haven't I been saying from the get go that he'll become one with the system and get swallowed up? It's why your comment about Trump bringing possible peace and prosperity seem naive. It's hard to grasp exactly where your coming from. You should at least understand that the people protesting the election results and referendum results feel they're also being squeezed by the current system and want their say.

[Letters]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-election-muslim-ban-immigrants-website-statement-removed-a7408466.html

Sounds familiar. :lol:

I bet he won't spend an extra £350m a week on the NHS either :sulk:

[Kano]

I'm not saying people shouldn't prostest, but smashing windows over a democratic vote is not a protest that a democratic society should be having.

That's a small fraction of the anger bubbling under the surface across the whole of society. Whether an experienced worker or a fresh faced student. Yet while it appears that there are two sides amongst the people, ironically, everyone is crying out for the exact same thing and the trick that keeps being played on people is to distract them into believing they are not. But once Trump is shown up to be as useless as everyone else before him, we can only hope that invisible divide finally disappears for everyone to pull together for the same cause.

[Niall_Quinn]

Good video and thanks for the share. But why have you shared this video? In fact, hasn't Trump pulled off the ultimate distraction with all the division he has caused? It's gone from Occupy Wall Street to total division other there.

Haven't I been saying from the get go that he'll become one with the system and get swallowed up? It's why your comment about Trump bringing possible peace and prosperity seem naive. It's hard to grasp exactly where your coming from. You should at least understand that the people protesting the election results and referendum results feel they're also being squeezed by the current system and want their say.

What I have been saying all along is I'm relieved that witch Clinton didn't get into the Whitehouse. Not just because she's a long term criminal but because we were on course for more of the same dangerous shite if she got in and held the door open for the crowd of neoliberal loons that have infected American politics since the late 90s (not 2001 because 2001 was their other shoe dropping, their golden ticket). The fact she didn't get in is a big win for America and a big win for the rest of us. None of this has anything to do with Trump beyond the fact he's not Clinton and he's not in bed with these crackpot warmongers. I'm not sure who he's in bed with but one of his partners is the US military who don't want any of this warmongering shit either. The neoliberal crazies know the game is up for the American debt economy and their solution is the same one every tinpot tyrant (and the more notable tyrants too) have turned to when the economic Ponzi scheme has run out of steam - war.

With war now off the table, sure, there will be other problems but war is off the table and that "trumped" every other consideration by a wide margin. Well it's off the table for the time being because the American economy still has to collapse and when that happens there will be huge uncertainty and nasty consequences. We'll have to see, but at least we won't be actively pursuing a war path. That said, the degenerate Obama doesn't leave until January and he has nothing to lose now he's been exposed as just the latest charlatan. These will be a dangerous few months.

As I said with Brexit, Leave or Remain - NOTHING WILL CHANGE. And that's exactly what we have seen. The Tories have shuffled themselves around and have done precisely zero to execute the will of the people. The same will be true on a domestic level with Trump. He'll make a lot of noise but he won't touch any of the major levers that could rescue the American economy. He can't, he doesn't have access to them. That money printing machine the Federal Reserve is privately owned and unless he wants to send troops in there to shut it down (and crash the global economy in the process) the fuckers there will continue to dictate fiscal policy. The big pharma boys control healthcare so Trump might change the name from Obamacare to Trumpcare but the net result will remain people getting screwed when they are unfortunate enough to fall ill. He might be able to mortgage off the last few square yards of America to the banksters in return for funny money so he can embark on a public program of renewal. Well we all know what that means - the public will renew and the private interests will come in and steal it when the profits are ready for plucking. Maggie and Ronnie were the masters of that game, we could see it all again.

So Trump/ Clinton, Clinton/ Trump will make no difference domestically but Clinton being disconnected from the process also disconnects the crazies who want to blow the shit out of everything and start again as last man standing. Trump will buy the military more toys to keep them onside. America will limp on for a few years more and Trump will consider it a successful presidency if the whole thing doesn't come crashing down on his watch.

As for Mexicans and Muslims and boy/ girls and immigrants and all the other hot button leftist nonsense issues, nothing will happen. The collapse would happen faster if America rid itself of its slave labour and I'm sure Trump (having spent a life in construction) knows that all too well. People are shitting their pants not because Trump is a racist and a white supremacist but because the desperate Dems convinced them that was the reality.

There are ways to fix all this but they are far too sane to ever be considered and the few would suffer while the majority gained, so real solutions are a non-starter.

[Niall_Quinn]

Sure, but if you live in a democratic society, you absolutely have the right to discuss, debate or even protest if you wish.

The minute that's no longer allowed, what does that make us?

It makes us honest because democracy is just wallpaper. Sure, you can protest and complain and do all that stuff. And you can even do it for a worthwhile cause, unlike these losers who are objecting because their criminal didn't get the nod. But try taking action and see what you get. Tangible action that would put genuine pressure on the state is always viewed in the same way. Terrorism. Out come the paramilitaries who are pretending to be police and heads get cracked. The clueless majority in front of their TV screens shake their heads and conclude it's the only way to keep their two tier law/ lawlessness and order/ chaos system ticking along. Poor saps. They are always so keen to support the warden when a few inmates get rowdy.

What was the last public action in the UK to provoke real change? You have to go way back to the poll tax "riots". The establishment was genuinely scared and limited concessions were made. This is how all change comes about. People stand up and punch the establishment in the face. We sanctify our grand democracy that goes back centuries but do you think King John would have negotiated if the other side wasn't holding swords and severed heads?

So yes, we need real protest and we need that protest to lead to real action. But what we don't need is a bunch of turds running around protesting that the system isn't even more crooked and rigged, which is effectively what they are doing.

[Letters]

What is wrong with people theses days? I would never have voted for Trump in a million years but a democratic process voted him in, accept it and get over it! It's just like the remain voters here, keep having a referendum until we get the result we want. Stop being spoilt brats, just do what you can to make your own life and it's environs fair and happy.

Of course the rioting is ridiculous but just because a vote goes a certain way that doesn't mean the debate is over and everyone on the 'losing' side should all go "OK, fair enough" and keep quiet
Do you think that had the Brexit vote gone the other way - especially as it was fairly close - all those who wanted to leave would have just shut up about it for perpetuity? Farage is on record saying that a 52-48 vote to remain would be "unfinished business" and the infamous petition to have a second vote was actually set up by a Brexiter in anticipation of a vote to remain.
And this is especially with Brexit because the vote was only about whether we should remain in the EU or not, there was no plan from anyone it seems about what life outside the EU actually means, what our relationship with the EU would be if we're outside it. So of course debate should continue and "you lost, get over it" is an unhelpful attitude. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum - although it would be interesting to see what the results would be if they did given how many people have admitted they now regret their vote to leave - but debate about what a post-Brexit UK looks like absolutely continue and anger is understandable as many people voted to leave on the basis of a pack of lies.

As for a democratic process electing Trump - he actually lost the popular vote to Clinton so it seems their process is as flawed as ours.

[Niall_Quinn]

Of course the rioting is ridiculous but just because a vote goes a certain way that doesn't mean the debate is over and everyone on the 'losing' side should all go "OK, fair enough" and keep quiet
Do you think that had the Brexit vote gone the other way - especially as it was fairly close - all those who wanted to leave would have just shut up about it for perpetuity? Farage is on record saying that a 52-48 vote to remain would be "unfinished business" and the infamous petition to have a second vote was actually set up by a Brexiter in anticipation of a vote to remain.
And this is especially with Brexit because the vote was only about whether we should remain in the EU or not, there was no plan from anyone it seems about what life outside the EU actually means, what our relationship with the EU would be if we're outside it. So of course debate should continue and "you lost, get over it" is an unhelpful attitude. I don't think there should be a 2nd referendum - although it would be interesting to see what the results would be if they did given how many people have admitted they now regret their vote to leave - but debate about what a post-Brexit UK looks like absolutely continue and anger is understandable as many people voted to leave on the basis of a pack of lies.

As for a democratic process electing Trump - he actually lost the popular vote to Clinton so it seems their process is as flawed as ours.

How so?

[Letters]

How so?
Because you have someone as president who gained fewer votes than the person who lost.
Our systems gives similarly unrepresentative results and the same could happen here although I don't know if it ever has.

[Niall_Quinn]

Because you have someone as president who gained fewer votes than the person who lost.
Our systems gives similarly unrepresentative results and the same could happen here although I don't know if it ever has.

So you think it would be a better system if the people of California and New York chose the president and the rest of the states were ignored?

[Letters]

I think it would be a better system if it was more representative of the way people voted, as would our system.
In the last election, for example, about 1 in 8 people voted for UKIP across the board and they only ended up with 1 MP out of 650.
Whatever you think of UKIP it's a pretty crummy system which yields those sorts of results.

[Kano]

I think it would be a better system if it was more representative of the way people voted, as would our system.
In the last election, for example, about 1 in 8 people voted for UKIP across the board and they only ended up with 1 MP out of 650.
Whatever you think of UKIP it's a pretty crummy system which yields those sorts of results.

But there's been little more than a grumble about challenging and changing the systems in place. Typically it always comes up when there is a result a particular section of society find hard to accept. Which is really double standards because if people or those actively participating in political circles want to seriously discuss changing it, then it has to happen way before an election is looming. But that will never happen because I don't think there is any real desire to change the way elections are decided, particular from the powers that be, because either way, this current method keeps the realistic 'democratic' choice down to two parties only. One gets in, the other waits its turn, safe in the knowledge they'll have another shot in 4-8 years. If it was truly democratic and there were real options for people to vote for, a lot of these guys would have a very brief careers and the corporations that leave an imprint on so many peoples lives would quickly lose their control.

[Letters]

It won't change, obviously. We had our chance with the AV vote. It wouldn't have been perfect but it gives demonstrably more representative results, it would have been a step in the right direction.
Cameron knew he could offer that to Clegg, safe in the knowledge that a combination of "I don't like change" and it being a bit complicated would see it rejected and on we go.
That was our chance and we collectively blew it.
Meh.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

So you think it would be a better system if the people of California and New York chose the president and the rest of the states were ignored?

Well unless you have an evenly divided amount of people in proportion to land size that's always kind of going to happen. A lot of countries are divided in terms of value systems in terms of urban and rural take government out of the equation and that's still the case.

That said the electoral system is what it is, and people should wait to see what this guy actually does before deciding they are going to protest it.

[Power n Glory]

What I have been saying all along is I'm relieved that witch Clinton didn't get into the Whitehouse. Not just because she's a long term criminal but because we were on course for more of the same dangerous shite if she got in and held the door open for the crowd of neoliberal loons that have infected American politics since the late 90s (not 2001 because 2001 was their other shoe dropping, their golden ticket). The fact she didn't get in is a big win for America and a big win for the rest of us. None of this has anything to do with Trump beyond the fact he's not Clinton and he's not in bed with these crackpot warmongers. I'm not sure who he's in bed with but one of his partners is the US military who don't want any of this warmongering shit either. The neoliberal crazies know the game is up for the American debt economy and their solution is the same one every tinpot tyrant (and the more notable tyrants too) have turned to when the economic Ponzi scheme has run out of steam - war.

With war now off the table, sure, there will be other problems but war is off the table and that "trumped" every other consideration by a wide margin. Well it's off the table for the time being because the American economy still has to collapse and when that happens there will be huge uncertainty and nasty consequences. We'll have to see, but at least we won't be actively pursuing a war path. That said, the degenerate Obama doesn't leave until January and he has nothing to lose now he's been exposed as just the latest charlatan. These will be a dangerous few months.

As I said with Brexit, Leave or Remain - NOTHING WILL CHANGE. And that's exactly what we have seen. The Tories have shuffled themselves around and have done precisely zero to execute the will of the people. The same will be true on a domestic level with Trump. He'll make a lot of noise but he won't touch any of the major levers that could rescue the American economy. He can't, he doesn't have access to them. That money printing machine the Federal Reserve is privately owned and unless he wants to send troops in there to shut it down (and crash the global economy in the process) the fuckers there will continue to dictate fiscal policy. The big pharma boys control healthcare so Trump might change the name from Obamacare to Trumpcare but the net result will remain people getting screwed when they are unfortunate enough to fall ill. He might be able to mortgage off the last few square yards of America to the banksters in return for funny money so he can embark on a public program of renewal. Well we all know what that means - the public will renew and the private interests will come in and steal it when the profits are ready for plucking. Maggie and Ronnie were the masters of that game, we could see it all again.

So Trump/ Clinton, Clinton/ Trump will make no difference domestically but Clinton being disconnected from the process also disconnects the crazies who want to blow the shit out of everything and start again as last man standing. Trump will buy the military more toys to keep them onside. America will limp on for a few years more and Trump will consider it a successful presidency if the whole thing doesn't come crashing down on his watch.

As for Mexicans and Muslims and boy/ girls and immigrants and all the other hot button leftist nonsense issues, nothing will happen. The collapse would happen faster if America rid itself of its slave labour and I'm sure Trump (having spent a life in construction) knows that all too well. People are shitting their pants not because Trump is a racist and a white supremacist but because the desperate Dems convinced them that was the reality.

There are ways to fix all this but they are far too sane to ever be considered and the few would suffer while the majority gained, so real solutions are a non-starter.

So how is this a revolution for the voters? How is this the end or push back to the Globalist bullshit if we’re getting more of the same? No more warmongering? Didn’t the last President promise that? It’s the American machine, not leadership that’s the problem. Trump has said he’s going to put an end to ISIS. How? Will he try negotiation or more military action? You know the answer. There is no way that will be solved peacefully and the people behind in the military won’t advise that route. I’m sure they’ll be itching to play with the latest toys Trump hands them.

Also, Trumps already declared he’ll recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He’s said Israel needs protecting. Doesn’t that alliance alone set alarms bells off for a new conflict?

But again, the win for Trump doesn’t represent people standing up against war mongering. It’s been about the economy and everyday people being squeezed to breaking point. You may be pleased with the result and think people are waking up and it’s a vote against the establishment but I disagree. It’s a step backwards when people can be played with the same card so easily and it’s poor vs poor again. Heck, the fraction opens wider and things get worse, I wouldn’t be surprised if they find a new enemy other seas just to get those flags waving again. It’s a shitty system and I’m not saying Hilary would have fixed it. It’s Capitalism that’s the problem. It doesn’t work and it makes sense that people want something new. I get that. But I find it funny how people have run into the arms of Donald Trump as if he’s a saviour! He represents the very system that has been fucking these people over for years.

[Power n Glory]

It makes us honest because democracy is just wallpaper. Sure, you can protest and complain and do all that stuff. And you can even do it for a worthwhile cause, unlike these losers who are objecting because their criminal didn't get the nod. But try taking action and see what you get. Tangible action that would put genuine pressure on the state is always viewed in the same way. Terrorism. Out come the paramilitaries who are pretending to be police and heads get cracked. The clueless majority in front of their TV screens shake their heads and conclude it's the only way to keep their two tier law/ lawlessness and order/ chaos system ticking along. Poor saps. They are always so keen to support the warden when a few inmates get rowdy.

What was the last public action in the UK to provoke real change? You have to go way back to the poll tax "riots". The establishment was genuinely scared and limited concessions were made. This is how all change comes about. People stand up and punch the establishment in the face. We sanctify our grand democracy that goes back centuries but do you think King John would have negotiated if the other side wasn't holding swords and severed heads?

So yes, we need real protest and we need that protest to lead to real action. But what we don't need is a bunch of turds running around protesting that the system isn't even more crooked and rigged, which is effectively what they are doing.

You can apply that logic to all protests. You can apply that to the poll tax riots as well.

[Niall_Quinn]

I think it would be a better system if it was more representative of the way people voted, as would our system.
In the last election, for example, about 1 in 8 people voted for UKIP across the board and they only ended up with 1 MP out of 650.
Whatever you think of UKIP it's a pretty crummy system which yields those sorts of results.

I wasn't discussing the UK. The UK and US electoral systems are entirely different. The US has 50 very diverse states and some 350 million citizens, many cultures, lifestyles, traditions. The fact is they shouldn't have a president at all because there's no way he can represent the diversity across those 50 states. But seeing as they do then the only way to hold the Union together is to consider the views of the smaller states, sometimes oversampling those views but not to the extent they can hijack an election.

Here in the UK we have London and the South East and that's it. There's not even a passing pretence at representation. Everyone knows the score. So yes, we could do with a different system over here but the yanks already have things about as close as they can get to representation given the nature and constitution of their Republic. No similarities at all.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well unless you have an evenly divided amount of people in proportion to land size that's always kind of going to happen. A lot of countries are divided in terms of value systems in terms of urban and rural take government out of the equation and that's still the case.

That said the electoral system is what it is, and people should wait to see what this guy actually does before deciding they are going to protest it.

But that's the point. It doesn't happen, or at least is tempered, in the States because the smaller states have a proportionally greater representation without that advantage being so significant it can skew a result. Best of a bad deal. If they had some advanced form of proportional representation you could end up with some Bible thumping nutter speaking for New York or a girly man liberal speaking for Texas.

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161111/323aef1b751e6c496b9c3f7ff4a395de.jpg

[Niall_Quinn]

So how is this a revolution for the voters? How is this the end or push back to the Globalist bullshit if we’re getting more of the same? No more warmongering? Didn’t the last President promise that? It’s the American machine, not leadership that’s the problem. Trump has said he’s going to put an end to ISIS. How? Will he try negotiation or more military action? You know the answer. There is no way that will be solved peacefully and the people behind in the military won’t advise that route. I’m sure they’ll be itching to play with the latest toys Trump hands them.

Also, Trumps already declared he’ll recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He’s said Israel needs protecting. Doesn’t that alliance alone set alarms bells off for a new conflict?

But again, the win for Trump doesn’t represent people standing up against war mongering. It’s been about the economy and everyday people being squeezed to breaking point. You may be pleased with the result and think people are waking up and it’s a vote against the establishment but I disagree. It’s a step backwards when people can be played with the same card so easily and it’s poor vs poor again. Heck, the fraction opens wider and things get worse, I wouldn’t be surprised if they find a new enemy other seas just to get those flags waving again. It’s a shitty system and I’m not saying Hilary would have fixed it. It’s Capitalism that’s the problem. It doesn’t work and it makes sense that people want something new. I get that. But I find it funny how people have run into the arms of Donald Trump as if he’s a saviour! He represents the very system that has been fucking these people over for years.

Why don't you read what people write? I didn't say Trump represented a revolution. I said when he screws his supporters over then they might wake the fuck up and realise nobody can change anything for them, they'll have to do it themselves. And you can project all you want but the choice here was very simple. On the one hand we have a warmonger and a criminal with an established track record of being a warmonger and a criminal. So there are no grey areas there. On the other we had Anybody But Clinton. Which happened to be Trump. Basically a glorified landlord with a track record of screwing tenants. Yet still, he hasn't started any wars that I'm aware of. He might. But he hasn't. That's a pretty unambiguous choice and an easy one to make. The warmongering criminal who wants more wars and has a bag full of scumbags who are eager to help her get them, or the grubby corporate bloke whose primary focus seems to be accelerating the speed at which the rich get richer. With one you'll probably end up dead, with the other you'll be poorer but alive to fight another day.

I said it was encouraging that people decided not to vote for a criminal and with 87% of the voters stating Clinton's criminality troubled them then that just leaves the 17% who are either too ignorant to be aware of the rather public issues or else are too immoral to care. Does this mean 87% of people are now virtuous? No and I didn't say that. Analogy. The BNP. Isn't it somewhat encouraging that they don't get a lot of votes? Wouldn't it be rather discouraging if they became competitive? Wouldn't that say quite a bit about the people of this country, even if they were voting for other issues? Well it's the same with Clinton. It's encouraging that her criminality at least had a bearing and it would be bad news if it had been overlooked. That doesn't mean it was the only issue, just as the BNP might roll up with all sorts of promises to spring things their way. But fundamentally, whatever they say, you don't vote for people like that because you know what their true intentions are. Just as Clinton's true intentions are obvious after a 30 year track record.

The pushback against globalisation is happening all across the world. Plenty of people in this latest election expressed concerns about jobs and trade and these are the stock in trade of globalisation. Cheap labour markets and a greater divide between those who have and those who have nothing. The hallmarks of globalisation. Here in the UK we voted against a superstate and more of this centralised bullshit. In the States they voted against the status quo that has delivered the same centrist misery. I don't know why you are questioning the existence of a significant push back against the globalists because it's all there right under your nose. In America and across Europe. People have, at least, woken up to that bullshit. Or at least half the people to a degree that they are prepared to vote for outcomes that are directly opposite to the stated establishment wisdom and expectations.

You are projecting reasons why Trump is a bad choice while ignoring all the concrete reasons why Clinton was unelectable. You have placed way too much emphasis on Trump and everything you are saying seems to imply Clinton would have somehow been an acceptable choice. Well there were only two choices and Clinton thankfully lost. After that, Donald Trump or Donald Duck, it doesn't matter really does it? Not unless you think there is somebody out there in US (or global) politics that has genuine intentions and even a glimmer of a chance of getting elected. Do you? What are you arguing here?

[Kano]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161111/323aef1b751e6c496b9c3f7ff4a395de.jpg

:lol:

[Letters]

Yeah, no chance of a war with Trump in charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8

[Niall_Quinn]

Yeah, no chance of a war with Trump in charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8

Can't you be honest maybe once a year? Nobody said there was no chance of a war with Trump in charge. Except you. Your usual. Tell somebody they've said something and then disagree. Usually because you are too lightweight to follow the debate so you have to simplify.

You do realise that we're involved in five wars initiated by the neoliberals that the Clinton gang represent? So if your argument is fuck Trump because he might start a war, let's go with the bitch who has already helped start five I can only say I pity you and there but for the grace of God...

[Power n Glory]

Yeah, no chance of a war with Trump in charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8

Exactly! The whole people choosing not to vote for a war criminal goes out the window because this is what they were voting for. I give up.

NQ, you've lost your mind. Share more vids and say less! The one shared yesterday was great. More of that please.

[Letters]

Can't you be honest maybe once a year? Nobody said there was no chance of a war with Trump in charge.
No, but your logic is that he's the better choice because he hasn't started a war yet, which is on a par logically with saying Messi is shit because he's never scored for Arsenal.

[Niall_Quinn]

You can apply that logic to all protests. You can apply that to the poll tax riots as well.

I don't get that at all. The poll tax riots were push back against one of Thatcher's more egregious attempts to steal from the poor. People hit the street, the bitch shit her knickers and discovered the lady was for turning and pretty damn fast. How is that the same as a bunch of ignoramuses crying and having tantrums about their criminal candidate not getting elected?

[Letters]

They're crying and having tantrums because of the criminal (and misogynist, and racist, and bigot, and sexual abuser) who did get elected...

[Niall_Quinn]

No, but your logic is that he's the better choice because he hasn't started a war yet, which is on a par logically with saying Messi is shit because he's never scored for Arsenal.

Is that what it's logically on par with? Like I said, thick as pig shit.

Here's one that works. You need a babysitter. Who do you pick? The known paedophile or the creepy looking guy? Neither I guess. But if you are forced to make a choice?

Well here's what you would do. You'd pretend the paedo wasn't a paedo.

[Letters]

Is that what it's logically on par with?
Yes. OK, If I really need to spell this out, here goes: Messi hasn't scored for Arsenal because...? Come on, you can do it... I'll give you a clue: Has he ever played for Arsenal? There you go!
So Trump hasn't started any wars because...come on, I'm sure you can join those dots. But it's pretty clear from his rhetoric he's going to.


Like I said, thick as pig shit.
No, you're thick as pig shit, YOU'RE thick as pig shit.
Some Donald Trump level arguing there. Enjoy :tiphat:

[Power n Glory]

No, but your logic is that he's the better choice because he hasn't started a war yet, which is on a par logically with saying Messi is shit because he's never scored for Arsenal.

It makes no sense. Especially when you argue 87% of voters have a problem with Hilary’s ‘criminal past’ but have heard what Trump has said and still voted for him. What the heck is there hope for if warmongering is a key concern and he’s openly said he’ll bomb the shit out of ISIS? What’s encouraging about that?

[Niall_Quinn]

They're crying and having tantrums because of the criminal (and misogynist, and racist, and bigot, and sexual abuser) who did get elected...

So they care so much about women, blacks, hispanics do they? And they aren't into sexual abuse? So why do they cheer a woman who has intimate ties with regimes like that in Saudi Arabia? And where were they as the ghetto spiralled out of control during 50 years of Democratic rule? And do they still cheer when Bill Clinton hauls his sorry arse onto the stage? I think they do, don't they? Again, these are all things that have happened. And yet no tears when Clinton announced her candidacy, no smashing shit up. Not even tears when she stole the nomination from Sanders. Here they all are with their Clinton pins calling the other guy every name under the sun.

Glad we don't have to take these people seriously.

[GP]

Yes. OK, If I really need to spell this out, here goes: Messi hasn't scored for Arsenal because...? Come on, you can do it... I'll give you a clue: Has he ever played for Arsenal? There you go!
So Trump hasn't started any wars because...come on, I'm sure you can join those dots. But it's pretty clear from his rhetoric he's going to.


No, you're thick as pig shit, YOU'RE thick as pig shit.
Some Donald Trump level arguing there. Enjoy :tiphat:

He's very smart. He uses good words. The best words.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes. OK, If I really need to spell this out, here goes: Messi hasn't scored for Arsenal because...? Come on, you can do it... I'll give you a clue: Has he ever played for Arsenal? There you go!
So Trump hasn't started any wars because...come on, I'm sure you can join those dots. But it's pretty clear from his rhetoric he's going to.


No, you're thick as pig shit, YOU'RE thick as pig shit.
Some Donald Trump level arguing there. Enjoy :tiphat:

I'm done laughing at you. I'll let other have a go.

Read it again moron. DOH!

[Niall_Quinn]

It makes no sense. Especially when you argue 87% of voters have a problem with Hilary’s ‘criminal past’ but have heard what Trump has said and still voted for him. What the heck is there hope for if warmongering is a key concern and he’s openly said he’ll bomb the shit out of ISIS? What’s encouraging about that?

Trump has said he wants to work WITH Russia to bomb the shit out of ISIS. Right now the US is funding ISIS and bombing Assad's forces, which is why Russia has to be in there at all. Russia wouldn't have any problems if the yanks were bombing ISIS but instead they trying to overthrow Assad. All as part of the agenda spelled out in 2001.

[Power n Glory]

I don't get that at all. The poll tax riots were push back against one of Thatcher's more egregious attempts to steal from the poor. People hit the street, the bitch shit her knickers and discovered the lady was for turning and pretty damn fast. How is that the same as a bunch of ignoramuses crying and having tantrums about their criminal candidate not getting elected?

Thatcher still found a way to steal from the poor, did she not? She still managed to fuck people over. The protests just forced her to use lube and condom. We're seeing the legacy she left right now. We have the same system in place. So people protesting for Clinton over Trump, same difference.

[Niall_Quinn]

Thatcher still found a way to steal from the poor, did she not? She still managed to fuck people over. The protests just forced her to use lube and condom. We're seeing the legacy she left right now. We have the same system in place. So people protesting for Clinton over Trump, same difference.

Of course she continued to abuse the poor, that was her job. The "rioters" (resistance) achieved their aims and overturned a very unjust law. Their aims didn't go beyond that, which is a shame. The Clintonistas can't possibly achieve their aims. Not my President, Fuck Trump? So what are their aims? To remove Trump? Well they get the chance to do that in 4 years or else they have to do it by undemocratic means. And considering they are lamenting the "fascist" who was elected against all the odds, wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical to remove Trump in an undemocratic manner? Mind you, hypocrisy is no barrier to these losers quite obviously.

[Niall_Quinn]

He's very smart. He uses good words. The best words.

Yep, you got me. I'm one of those book reader types.

[Power n Glory]

Trump has said he wants to work WITH Russia to bomb the shit out of ISIS. Right now the US is funding ISIS and bombing Assad's forces, which is why Russia has to be in there at all. Russia wouldn't have any problems if the yanks were bombing ISIS but instead they trying to overthrow Assad. All as part of the agenda spelled out in 2001.

So dropping bombs with Russia and helping Assad bomb his own people is acceptable?

[Ollie the Optimist]

In the last three major elections (2015 GE, EU Ref and US election), one of the key reasons that left lost is because they have given up the idea of debating with anyone who disagrees with them. They think that anyone who votes differently to them is sub human scum and deserves no time. Why would that convince anyone to vote for their side? In this day and age, so many of my generation use social media and surround themselves with likeminded people and anyone who dares to disagree with anything they say is shouted down. There is no engaging and trying to find out why the person disagrees with them, they just say they are a stupid racist and scum.

There have been cases in the last three elections of shy tory/trump/leave voters as why would people want to subject themselves to abuse? While i believe that you should be open about what you want to vote for and why you will vote that way, i also understand while several people wont subject themselves to abuse just for daring to be different then others. I have tried to debate with many both on Facebook and twitter and i end up just being accused of being a racist ukip voter. Why would i try and engage with people like that again and listen to what they have to say? They clearly don't care what i think and that is why the left will struggle to win another election for a while. They have this smugness about themselves that they are better people then the right and therefore shouldn't engage which leads to the right voting for the Tories or Donald Trump because the left make no effort to engage sensibly with them.

The left also claim the right are racist and spread hate yet a lot of the time in the protests following both Trump election and Tory election there have been death threats issued to people who dared vote for either. There was a video yesterday of a group of young black men beating up a older white male who voted Trump. They claim voting for Trump would lead to a rise in racist attacks yet there they are performing these racist attacks yet it is justified because they didn't vote for Trump. Yet when you compare the reaction of Tory voters to labour winning the london Mayor election, there were no marches they just accepted it and got on with it. Now, we all have a right to protest and that must be protected but most of these protestors are the reason their side lost. They intimate anyone who disagrees with them and alienates them and then wonder why they lose.

Until most on the left accept others have different view points and try and engage with them instead of calling them scum and racist, they will struggle to win another election for a while both here in the UK and in the US.

[Goonermerree]

In the last three major elections (2015 GE, EU Ref and US election), one of the key reasons that left lost is because they have given up the idea of debating with anyone who disagrees with them. They think that anyone who votes differently to them is sub human scum and deserves no time. Why would that convince anyone to vote for their side? In this day and age, so many of my generation use social media and surround themselves with likeminded people and anyone who dares to disagree with anything they say is shouted down. There is no engaging and trying to find out why the person disagrees with them, they just say they are a stupid racist and scum.

There have been cases in the last three elections of shy tory/trump/leave voters as why would people want to subject themselves to abuse? While i believe that you should be open about what you want to vote for and why you will vote that way, i also understand while several people wont subject themselves to abuse just for daring to be different then others. I have tried to debate with many both on Facebook and twitter and i end up just being accused of being a racist ukip voter. Why would i try and engage with people like that again and listen to what they have to say? They clearly don't care what i think and that is why the left will struggle to win another election for a while. They have this smugness about themselves that they are better people then the right and therefore shouldn't engage which leads to the right voting for the Tories or Donald Trump because the left make no effort to engage sensibly with them.

The left also claim the right are racist and spread hate yet a lot of the time in the protests following both Trump election and Tory election there have been death threats issued to people who dared vote for either. There was a video yesterday of a group of young black men beating up a older white male who voted Trump. They claim voting for Trump would lead to a rise in racist attacks yet there they are performing these racist attacks yet it is justified because they didn't vote for Trump. Yet when you compare the reaction of Tory voters to labour winning the london Mayor election, there were no marches they just accepted it and got on with it. Now, we all have a right to protest and that must be protected but most of these protestors are the reason their side lost. They intimate anyone who disagrees with them and alienates them and then wonder why they lose.

Until most on the left accept others have different view points and try and engage with them instead of calling them scum and racist, they will struggle to win another election for a while both here in the UK and in the US.

:gp: Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Power n Glory]

Of course she continued to abuse the poor, that was her job. The "rioters" (resistance) achieved their aims and overturned a very unjust law. Their aims didn't go beyond that, which is a shame. The Clintonistas can't possibly achieve their aims. Not my President, Fuck Trump? So what are their aims? To remove Trump? Well they get the chance to do that in 4 years or else they have to do it by undemocratic means. And considering they are lamenting the "fascist" who was elected against all the odds, wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical to remove Trump in an undemocratic manner? Mind you, hypocrisy is no barrier to these losers quite obviously.

So what would going beyond that mean for the resistance? Maybe overthrowing Thatcher? Would that be the next step? We’ve seen it happen in other countries. The Arab Spring?

So if the establishment need that sort of kick from the people, what’s your problem with those protesting? Ok, if they were to get Trump out and Hilary gets in, why would it stop them kicking Hilary out in the same way if she carried on the nonsense? Not saying that’s the right way to go, it seems like your suggesting that’s the awakening people need, so to call the protesters hypocritical…makes no sense to me.

[Goonermerree]

We have a right to protest in democracies, but I can't see the point of protesting over democratic decisions. There will be many reasons to protest against Trump once he gets going, but if every time someone is elected to power there are riots by the other side it will just get ridiculous. People had their voice, they had their vote, the other fella got in, so just protest now about his policies when they come thick and fast.

Even Trump voters will be questioning him, to a point. A lot of people in the USA will not have got past the fact that they can keep guns, and abolish abortions. That will be a bit reason why many voted for Trump/Pence.

[Niall_Quinn]

So dropping bombs with Russia and helping Assad bomb his own people is acceptable?

And there we go again. I tell you what Trump actually said, in direct contradiction to what you implied, so that's done, shift goalposts and go again.

Assad, like any of the authoritarians in a region continuously destabilised by the world powers, is ruthless towards his opponents. But does he bomb his own people? Well yes he does now, following the US starting a civil war in his country and sending ISIS against him. That's what happens in a civil war. Did the Americans bomb and burn the shit out of civilians during their own civil war? Yes they did.

But was Assad a crazed tyrant happily bombing his people before the US intervened? Of course not and any fool can figure out what that bullshit is all about. First it was Saddam, then Gadaffi, now it is Assad and tomorrow it will be whoever we want it to be. Dictators don't bomb people to hold power because they wouldn't hold it for very long. Instead they arrest people, violate their human rights, lock them up as political prisoners, assassinate them. Just the same as the US does. In fact one Barak Obama is infamous for such behaviour.

However, now that the US has started this war and created ISIS, now that there's a chance to do something about it, yes, I think it would be a good idea to bomb the shit out of ISIS. And if we could avoid conflict with the Russians then that would be a great idea.

[Niall_Quinn]

So what would going beyond that mean for the resistance? Maybe overthrowing Thatcher? Would that be the next step? We’ve seen it happen in other countries. The Arab Spring?

So if the establishment need that sort of kick from the people, what’s your problem with those protesting? Ok, if they were to get Trump out and Hilary gets in, why would it stop them kicking Hilary out in the same way if she carried on the nonsense? Not saying that’s the right way to go, it seems like your suggesting that’s the awakening people need, so to call the protesters hypocritical…makes no sense to me.

I would have liked to see civil resistance right across the board. I'd rather not see violence at all but the unhappy truth is violence is usually the only way an oppressive regime can be toppled. And yes we do have an oppressive regime here in the UK, only it's not as oppressive as the regimes we fund elsewhere so we are moderate only in a relevant sense. Even so, the entire system is set up to rob from the poor to hand to the rich the the state hires thugs and accomplices in ever increasing numbers to protect this racket. There is no equality under the law, there is a horribly tilted economic playing field, there is an inner circle of privilege that guards all the levers of control - protected by a media that proclaims anyone who comes along that might challenge this arrangement is a racist or a terrorist or a something-ist that must be feared. So our regime is relatively benign by comparison but would happily be brutal if provoked. That's why I don't agree with violence, because good people would get gunned down in the blink of an eye. I wouldn't object at all if there was some guarantee only the fuckers in charge would get slaughtered, but no such guarantee is possible. They have been on their guard since the heroic Guy Fawkes tried his hand at it. There's a reason why the violent bastards in charge, responsible for the deaths of millions all over the globe, tell us violence isn't the answer. Because they don't fancy being on the end of it for a change.

So refusal to work Refusal to consume. Refusal to bank. Just for 3-4 days. We could all go out and meet the neighbours and share what we have. Big smiles on our faces, the BBC switched off, a big fuck-you to any statist scum that showed his face. The state would be done by the end of it. A peaceful revolution for the people by the people and there's nothing the state could do about it. Not a damn thing. Which is why every learned commentator in the media will tell you no such uprising is possible and every politician works so hard to keep people divided. But of course Ghandi drove the British into the sea. Admittedly he failed when he went up against the real demons on this planet and the masters of division, the religious mobsters. But nobody can beat them until the human capacity for reason develops.

[Letters]

Yep, you got me. I'm one of those book reader types.

I'm sure you'll find Wally one day.

[Goonermerree]

I'm sure you'll find Wally one day.

:haha:

[Xhaka Can’t]

:gp: Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm sure you could have managed a bit of brevity.

[Xhaka Can’t]

In the last three major elections (2015 GE, EU Ref and US election), one of the key reasons that left lost is because they have given up the idea of debating with anyone who disagrees with them. They think that anyone who votes differently to them is sub human scum and deserves no time. Why would that convince anyone to vote for their side? In this day and age, so many of my generation use social media and surround themselves with likeminded people and anyone who dares to disagree with anything they say is shouted down. There is no engaging and trying to find out why the person disagrees with them, they just say they are a stupid racist and scum.

There have been cases in the last three elections of shy tory/trump/leave voters as why would people want to subject themselves to abuse? While i believe that you should be open about what you want to vote for and why you will vote that way, i also understand while several people wont subject themselves to abuse just for daring to be different then others. I have tried to debate with many both on Facebook and twitter and i end up just being accused of being a racist ukip voter. Why would i try and engage with people like that again and listen to what they have to say? They clearly don't care what i think and that is why the left will struggle to win another election for a while. They have this smugness about themselves that they are better people then the right and therefore shouldn't engage which leads to the right voting for the Tories or Donald Trump because the left make no effort to engage sensibly with them.

The left also claim the right are racist and spread hate yet a lot of the time in the protests following both Trump election and Tory election there have been death threats issued to people who dared vote for either. There was a video yesterday of a group of young black men beating up a older white male who voted Trump. They claim voting for Trump would lead to a rise in racist attacks yet there they are performing these racist attacks yet it is justified because they didn't vote for Trump. Yet when you compare the reaction of Tory voters to labour winning the london Mayor election, there were no marches they just accepted it and got on with it. Now, we all have a right to protest and that must be protected but most of these protestors are the reason their side lost. They intimate anyone who disagrees with them and alienates them and then wonder why they lose.

Until most on the left accept others have different view points and try and engage with them instead of calling them scum and racist, they will struggle to win another election for a while both here in the UK and in the US.

That mindset is not unique to the left.

Far too many people refuse to step outside the comfort of their echo chamber.

[Letters]

A lot of people in the USA will not have got past the fact that they can keep guns, and abolish abortions. That will be a bit reason why many voted for Trump/Pence.
They could have kept guns under Clinton, Trump isn't going to abolish abortions. Like with Brexit there's going to be a lot of disappointed people once they realise he's not going to do half the things he kept going on about.

[GP]

Trump's motorcade arrives in Washington

http://i.imgur.com/JPMxMvI.gifv

[Ollie the Optimist]

That mindset is not unique to the left.

Far too many people refuse to step outside the comfort of their echo chamber.

I agree it is not unique to the left but in the last three elections, those mainly of the left remained in their echo chambers while those that won engaged with the voters and managed to convince them to support their cause. Thats why right has won recently.

[Letters]

Trump's motorcade arrives in Washington

http://i.imgur.com/JPMxMvI.gifv

:lol:

Similarly

http://newsthump.com/2016/11/09/washington-home-depot-store-receives-order-for-five-thousand-gallons-of-gold-exterior-paint/

[Goonermerree]

They could have kept guns under Clinton, Trump isn't going to abolish abortions. Like with Brexit there's going to be a lot of disappointed people once they realise he's not going to do half the things he kept going on about.

My point is that these are very big issues for many Americans and will have swayed their decision. Whether he does what he says or can do remains to be seen. Democrats are always trying to change gun laws.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm sure you'll find Wally one day.

I thought I had.

[GP]

I thought I had.

You'd think so, but if you looks closely, those aren't actually red stripes, but orange.

[Power n Glory]

And there we go again. I tell you what Trump actually said, in direct contradiction to what you implied, so that's done, shift goalposts and go again.

Assad, like any of the authoritarians in a region continuously destabilised by the world powers, is ruthless towards his opponents. But does he bomb his own people? Well yes he does now, following the US starting a civil war in his country and sending ISIS against him. That's what happens in a civil war. Did the Americans bomb and burn the shit out of civilians during their own civil war? Yes they did.

But was Assad a crazed tyrant happily bombing his people before the US intervened? Of course not and any fool can figure out what that bullshit is all about. First it was Saddam, then Gadaffi, now it is Assad and tomorrow it will be whoever we want it to be. Dictators don't bomb people to hold power because they wouldn't hold it for very long. Instead they arrest people, violate their human rights, lock them up as political prisoners, assassinate them. Just the same as the US does. In fact one Barak Obama is infamous for such behaviour.

However, now that the US has started this war and created ISIS, now that there's a chance to do something about it, yes, I think it would be a good idea to bomb the shit out of ISIS. And if we could avoid conflict with the Russians then that would be a great idea.

How is that shifting goal posts? I thought a vote for Trump meant less Syrians would die? I'm not the one here shifting goal posts. I mean, come on! Now bombing is a good idea?



Again, there's a huge difference between some guy sounding off to get elected and a woman that is directly responsible for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of human beings. There just is. And if Trump carries on where Obama/ Clinton left off then sure, he joins the ranks of the war criminals and serial killers than we've seen stream through our hallowed parliaments over the decades. But right now there's simply no comparison. Why it even has to be explained that it's a good thing people rejected that woman is tough to understand. Reasoning seems to be, well maybe Trump is Hitler, therefore let's stick with the Hilter we know. So maybe Trump won't be Hitler. At least it's possible for that to happen, whereas with Clinton it's not. She's already joined that club and it can't be un-joined.

And don't speculate on how the Syrian war started. From what I recall, Assad had backing and placed in power by the US. He started to bomb the people for days when they wanted him out. Nobody intervened whilst he bombed and then the US finally got involved when they heard about chemical weapons being used and gave out weapons instead of direct intervention. How accurate that all is, I don't know. We don't really need a history lesson on it. But it's clear your shifting goal posts and it doesn't matter why or how the US got involved.

It's ok to bomb as long as we bomb with Russia. Am I shifting the goal posts?

[LDG]

They could have kept guns under Clinton, Trump isn't going to abolish abortions. Like with Brexit there's going to be a lot of disappointed people once they realise he's not going to do half the things he kept going on about.

Like a great man once said:


You do know that the President is just a front man for the machine that works behind him/her?

He's an actor saying or doing whatever will get his party in office.

What's more worrying are the people who are in agreement with what he's saying. That's the real problem. Just like the UK. A flock of sheep being herded here and there, deflecting from the real problems that nobody wants to address.

Having either if them in office amounts to the same thing. A different bunch of power hungry cunts, ensuring the rich people they are in bed with stay rich. There is no politics here, it's just which side gets to the trough this time round.

The very fact that people (even here) are obsessed with the personality of the two people going for office, shows how much we are obsessed with the shite the media spew out. It's like X-Factor for presidents. Soon people will phone vote it all.

Whoever ends up in office isn't going to be dangerous (depending on which way you view it), as the puppet will revert to type as soon as their feet are under the desk. The stats quo will remain....unless Trump can't keep his mouth shut, in which case I'm sure he term will be terminated quickly in some way shape or form.

:ninja:

[Letters]

My point is that these are very big issues for many Americans and will have swayed their decision. Whether he does what he says or can do remains to be seen. Democrats are always trying to change gun laws.

Sure. But this is where I despair about the level of the debate. Trump came out with all this guff about how Clinton wants to take everyone's guns away and everyone boos, no-one thinks "Hang on, does she? Is that what she said?"
And of course no, no it isn't. She just wanted to improve background checks and who could sensibly argue with that? Absolutely no suggestion from Clinton that she's going to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Clinton is more pro-choice than Trump, that much is true, but I seriously can't see him outlawing abortion.

[Letters]

You'd think so, but if you looks closely, those aren't actually red stripes, but orange.

:lol: I see what you did there <_<

[Niall_Quinn]

They could have kept guns under Clinton, Trump isn't going to abolish abortions. Like with Brexit there's going to be a lot of disappointed people once they realise he's not going to do half the things he kept going on about.

That's the point FFS!

There are more and more disappointed people, angry people, as these ridiculous charades unfold. When nobody turns up to vote then the people will have spoken. Until that time, sometimes you'll "win", sometimes you'll "lose" and fuck all will change (except maybe the ratio at which the ultra wealthy steal a living off the backs off the rest of us). This is why it's so sad and infuriating when you keep on going to your silly links to the mainstream media in order to confirm your belief in this pointless system. However, because you do believe in the system, for whatever reason (and I can guess), then you should at least be bound by your own rules. So Trump won and that's that. Live with it and stop your whining. You wouldn't have been here had it gone the other way, you'd have just moved on with your version of normality intact. Instead something happened that has disrupted that normality so you, and many others, are thrashing this way and that, confused and alarmed to be hoisted up and hung out to dry by a system that you endorse and even go as far as to criticise others who object to it. Bush for 8 years then Obama for 8 years and now Trump for 8 years. So what? What's the big deal? What do you think is actually going to happen to you as a result, apart from the shit that usually happens?

Wahhhhh, we lost Brexit. Waaaaaaah, Trump got elected. FFS!

[Goonermerree]

Sure. But this is where I despair about the level of the debate. Trump came out with all this guff about how Clinton wants to take everyone's guns away and everyone boos, no-one thinks "Hang on, does she? Is that what she said?"
And of course no, no it isn't. She just wanted to improve background checks and who could sensibly argue with that? Absolutely no suggestion from Clinton that she's going to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Clinton is more pro-choice than Trump, that much is true, but I seriously can't see him outlawing abortion.

But it doesn't matter what he will do, it's what he said he will do that got people voting for him.

[Letters]

But it doesn't matter what he will do, it's what he said he will do that got people voting for him.

I agree, but that's what makes me facepalm. Why doesn't it matter?! Why can candidates just say stuff which clearly isn't going to happen and people whoop and cheer and wave little stars and stripes and vote for them?

[LDG]

I agree, but that's what makes me facepalm. Why doesn't it matter?! Why can candidates just say stuff which clearly isn't going to happen and people whoop and cheer and wave little stars and stripes and vote for them?

OMFG.

[Goonermerree]

I agree, but that's what makes me facepalm. Why doesn't it matter?! Why can candidates just say stuff which clearly isn't going to happen and people whoop and cheer and wave little stars and stripes and vote for them?

You'd better ask those who voted for him why they believed him. And my point again is that they heard him and believed/or wanted to believe him, so they voted for him. Trump will look a mug when he doesn't build the wall and he doesn't ban Muslims and so on.

[Niall_Quinn]

How is that shifting goal posts? I thought a vote for Trump meant less Syrians would die? I'm not the one here shifting goal posts. I mean, come on! Now bombing is a good idea?



And don't speculate on how the Syrian war started. From what I recall, Assad had backing and placed in power by the US. He started to bomb the people for days when they wanted him out. Nobody intervened whilst he bombed and then the US finally got involved when they heard about chemical weapons being used and gave out weapons instead of direct intervention. How accurate that all is, I don't know. We don't really need a history lesson on it. But it's clear your shifting goal posts and it doesn't matter why or how the US got involved.

It's ok to bomb as long as we bomb with Russia. Am I shifting the goal posts?

Because if the yanks stop bombing Assad's forces and stop funding ISIS and start bombing ISIS then the civil war they started in Syria can be quickly concluded and order restored. Otherwise it will drag with the ever increasing possibility of direct confrontation with Russia. The Turks have been trying to provoke that for months, another surrogate for the US of course. If there's another way to put ISIS back in the bottle then tell me.

And we DO know the history of this because we've seen it all before. Afghanistan in the 80s, the Iran/ Iraq war. All conflicts engineered and enabled by the US and Russia. So in fact history is of crucial importance. You know, or should do, that the neoliberal fucks who infested the Bush and then Obama camps actually wrote all this down. It's not a secret, they are quite open about it. Seven countries in five years. Wesley Clark (that well know tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist) disclosed this on TV. Bolton and his merry gang of lunatics publicly published a paper outlining their aims and objectives. This is what a Clinton presidency represented. More of that shit. And that's why the ridiculous Podesta was desperately trying to stick the Wikileaks revelations on Russia, tarnishing Trump by association. Because it's actually sane to suggest the US and Russia stabilise relations and cooperate to remove the threat of ISIS. Unfortunately the neocons don't do sane. It offends them. No bombing of anyone would be required if it wasn't for their warmongering bullshit. And THAT's where the goalposts are located. With the people responsible for this shit in the first place, Hilary Clinton and her Bush buddies being notable among them.

[Niall_Quinn]

You'd better ask those who voted for him why they believed him. And my point again is that they heard him and believed/or wanted to believe him, so they voted for him. Trump will look a mug when he doesn't build the wall and he doesn't ban Muslims and so on.

They'll find a way to distract everyone from that. Some new crisis the government has to save us from. All depends how many times they can do that without the majority saying fuck that shit. Too many people are trying to write off the average guy as thick as shit. And yet, look how hard it has been for them to get their war in Syria. And they failed totally to get a war going with Iran. People learned from Iraq, at least enough people did. And more have now learned from the Obama deception. And even more will learn from the Trump deception. Then one bright morning...

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

So am i to understand that Assad is not barrel bombing his own people and is a wise and enlightened ruler, and regardless of the American geopolitical/financial interests in the region (which I don't care about), that the wonderfully good thing to do will be to help him and the Russians turn the country into a vassal state?

Funny how all the sane and most reasonable solutions always seem to work to Russia's advantage, that woefully misunderstood and benevolent power.

[GP]

http://i.imgur.com/LDaGH4n.jpg

[Niall_Quinn]

So am i to understand that Assad is not barrel bombing his own people and is a wise and enlightened ruler, and regardless of the American geopolitical/financial interests in the region (which I don't care about), that the wonderfully good thing to do will be to help him and the Russians turn the country into a vassal state?

Funny how all the sane and most reasonable solutions always seem to work to Russia's advantage, that woefully misunderstood and benevolent power.

See what you did there?

[Power n Glory]

Because if the yanks stop bombing Assad's forces and stop funding ISIS and start bombing ISIS then the civil war they started in Syria can be quickly concluded and order restored. Otherwise it will drag with the ever increasing possibility of direct confrontation with Russia. The Turks have been trying to provoke that for months, another surrogate for the US of course. If there's another way to put ISIS back in the bottle then tell me.

And we DO know the history of this because we've seen it all before. Afghanistan in the 80s, the Iran/ Iraq war. All conflicts engineered and enabled by the US and Russia. So in fact history is of crucial importance. You know, or should do, that the neoliberal fucks who infested the Bush and then Obama camps actually wrote all this down. It's not a secret, they are quite open about it. Seven countries in five years. Wesley Clark (that well know tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist) disclosed this on TV. Bolton and his merry gang of lunatics publicly published a paper outlining their aims and objectives. This is what a Clinton presidency represented. More of that shit. And that's why the ridiculous Podesta was desperately trying to stick the Wikileaks revelations on Russia, tarnishing Trump by association. Because it's actually sane to suggest the US and Russia stabilise relations and cooperate to remove the threat of ISIS. Unfortunately the neocons don't do sane. It offends them. No bombing of anyone would be required if it wasn't for their warmongering bullshit. And THAT's where the goalposts are located. With the people responsible for this shit in the first place, Hilary Clinton and her Bush buddies being notable among them.

So again....it's ok to bomb and kill Syrians as long as the US are in bed with Russia?

So the voters weren't easy with Clinton killing Syrians, but it's ok for Trump? And as long as it's done with Russia? Is this progress?

[Power n Glory]

They'll find a way to distract everyone from that. Some new crisis the government has to save us from. All depends how many times they can do that without the majority saying fuck that shit. Too many people are trying to write off the average guy as thick as shit. And yet, look how hard it has been for them to get their war in Syria. And they failed totally to get a war going with Iran. People learned from Iraq, at least enough people did. And more have now learned from the Obama deception. And even more will learn from the Trump deception. Then one bright morning...

Iran? Isn't Trump threatening to mess up the good terms by ripping up the nuke agreement? I really don't understand where it is you're coming from.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

See what you did there?

I admit it's a trifle sarcastic, but it might as well be true if the solution is to give these people cooperation

I have no doubt the US is responsible both through incompetence and malfeasance of destabilising Syria, but the refugees flooding away from the country aren't just escaping from ISIS.

The Neo con solution was always direct intervention and leave a vacuum behind, but the Neo cons are relatively a new force...American foreign policy was largely using the military to back the potentates or better still put our fingers in our ears and say "sorry i can't hear you" when Russia fighters are "provoked and backed into a corner by NATO aggression" into bombing Aid convoys.

That seems to be the bottom line, American imperialism bad, Russian Imperialism? meh.....what you gonna do?

[Power n Glory]

So am i to understand that Assad is not barrel bombing his own people and is a wise and enlightened ruler, and regardless of the American geopolitical/financial interests in the region (which I don't care about), that the wonderfully good thing to do will be to help him and the Russians turn the country into a vassal state?

Funny how all the sane and most reasonable solutions always seem to work to Russia's advantage, that woefully misunderstood and benevolent power.

So it seems.

[Letters]

However, because you do believe in the system, for whatever reason (and I can guess), then you should at least be bound by your own rules.
I don't know what you mean by 'believe in the system'. It's not a matter of belief. It's like me saying you believe that Wenger is Arsenal manager, or saying that you don't.
It really isn't a matter of what you believe, the fact is he is. Whether you think he should be or you or I think our system is a good one is a different matter. It is what it is.
I don't see any way of changing it right now, you may think you do but for now it is what it is, what I think about the system doesn't matter and that doesn't mean I endorse it.

And no, I won't stop whining. Well, I will at some point but our system gives me free speech, free enough to shake my head at the result. I'm not going to be rioting about it or throwing rocks at police, I don't approve of people who are doing that. The
result is what it is and yes I accept it but I don't have to be happy about it or keep quiet about it. You have poured scorn on people who voted for Clinton, you're entitled to that view and to express it.

As for what will happen to me under a Trump presidency, well maybe nothing. But even if it isn't the car crash I'm concerned about, I'm still concerned that people voted en masse for someone who spouted such bile and bigotry. Even if it is a big "screw you" to the system and the establishment, do people really think he's a better alternative? Really?

[Power n Glory]

I admit it's a trifle sarcastic, but it might as well be true if the solution is to give these people cooperation

I have no doubt the US is responsible both through incompetence and malfeasance of destabilising Syria, but the refugees flooding away from the country aren't just escaping from ISIS.

The Neo con solution was always direct intervention and leave a vacuum behind, but the Neo cons are relatively a new force...American foreign policy was largely using the military to back the potentates or better still put our fingers in our ears and say "sorry i can't hear you" when Russia fighters are "provoked and backed into a corner by NATO aggression" into bombing Aid convoys.

That seems to be the bottom line, American imperialism bad, Russian Imperialism? meh.....what you gonna do?

It's a change. :lol:

[Letters]

http://i.imgur.com/LDaGH4n.jpg

:lol:


:(

[Goonermerree]

:lol:


:(
Did all of those people die in 2016? Add my little dog to that list. She was a yank, found her on the road in Feb 2005 and brought her to the UK for a better life. Beautiful she was, but she died in June. I'm still devastated about it.

[Letters]

Did all of those people die in 2016? Add my little dog to that list. She was a yank, found her on the road in Feb 2005 and brought her to the UK for a better life. Beautiful she was, but she died in June. I'm still devastated about it.

:hug:

[Niall_Quinn]

So again....it's ok to bomb and kill Syrians as long as the US are in bed with Russia?

So the voters weren't easy with Clinton killing Syrians, but it's ok for Trump? And as long as it's done with Russia? Is this progress?

Well yet again, you are creating your own narrative and then pinning it on me. I don't know why you just cant read what is typed and then respond to that.

"In bed" with the Russians? How does avoiding conflict with the Russians transform into that caricature? It's like more of the lunacy out of the Podesta camp.

And then you go back to trying to suggest my position is the voters rejected Clinton to save Syrians. I didn't say that. I said I was pleased the criminal bitch was rejected because it would result in fewer deaths. So of course you turn that into another anti-Trump angle - which is all you are really saying. Trump bad. And you'll transform any argument so it can be used for that purpose.

So instead we can look at the facts. Clinton is (was?) part of a war agenda designed to encircle Russia and China and establish "full spectrum dominance", their words. They have launched most of the wars they promised to launch. They wrote it all down on paper and you can easily find the details if you want to look. Russia has warned time and again that this sustained aggression will eventually have to be met. And so we now have Russia in the Ukraine and Russia in Syria. Unfortunately, precisely what the neocons expected and wanted. Clinton in the State Dept. supported this agenda every step of the way, when in fact it's supposed to be the State Dept's role to offer diplomatic solutions first and foremost. "We came, We Saw, He Died!", remember that one? The fucking secretary of state, a rank barbarian bathing herself in blood. Anyone who can't see we've dodged a bullet with that cunt's ambitions being checked sure likes to live dangerously.

As for Trump, all along he's said he wants trade with Russia, not war. He said it all along. And for some reason, that sane position is viewed as a concession to the nation the US has encircled with hundreds of military bases. Remember what happened when the Russians had a bash at placing one base in Cuba? But hundreds of bases and a missile defence shield pushed to Russia's border, that's all acceptable and conducted in the interests of peace. Russia isn't the good guy, but for sure the US is the biggest threat to world peace because look, use your eyes, look at the map. WHY does the US have hundreds of bases all over the world? Why is it tipping the nuclear balance wildly by staging anti-missile defences right on Russia's borders in regions that were previously within the Soviet sphere of influence? Why has the US rejected the balance of power out of hand and pushed for absolute power? Trump says he wants to roll all this back. Great. Spectacularly good idea. He has little chance of achieving it because the warmongers can always create events on the ground that will force his hand, but at least he's not cheerleading for war. And no, attacking ISIS is not a war. They are stateless, they have no diplomatic legitimacy. Attacking Assad's forces - that's a war.

So yes, it's very much progress if tensions with Russia are calmed. I mean why wouldn't it be? Why does that question even need to be asked or answered?

[Goonermerree]

:hug:

Aw, ta.

[Letters]

:( Oh sod off 2016, now apparently my aunt has died :doh:
Hadn't seen her for years, was quite close to her and her family when I was a kid though. She was old as the hills, but still...
:rose:

[Power n Glory]

Well yet again, you are creating your own narrative and then pinning it on me. I don't know why you just cant read what is typed and then respond to that.

"In bed" with the Russians? How does avoiding conflict with the Russians transform into that caricature? It's like more of the lunacy out of the Podesta camp.

And then you go back to trying to suggest my position is the voters rejected Clinton to save Syrians. I didn't say that. I said I was pleased the criminal bitch was rejected because it would result in fewer deaths. So of course you turn that into another anti-Trump angle - which is all you are really saying. Trump bad. And you'll transform any argument so it can be used for that purpose.

So instead we can look at the facts. Clinton is (was?) part of a war agenda designed to encircle Russia and China and establish "full spectrum dominance", their words. They have launched most of the wars they promised to launch. They wrote it all down on paper and you can easily find the details if you want to look. Russia has warned time and again that this sustained aggression will eventually have to be met. And so we now have Russia in the Ukraine and Russia in Syria. Unfortunately, precisely what the neocons expected and wanted. Clinton in the State Dept. supported this agenda every step of the way, when in fact it's supposed to be the State Dept's role to offer diplomatic solutions first and foremost. "We came, We Saw, He Died!", remember that one? The fucking secretary of state, a rank barbarian bathing herself in blood. Anyone who can't see we've dodged a bullet with that cunt's ambitions being checked sure likes to live dangerously.

As for Trump, all along he's said he wants trade with Russia, not war. He said it all along. And for some reason, that sane position is viewed as a concession to the nation the US has encircled with hundreds of military bases. Remember what happened when the Russians had a bash at placing one base in Cuba? But hundreds of bases and a missile defence shield pushed to Russia's border, that's all acceptable and conducted in the interests of peace. Russia isn't the good guy, but for sure the US is the biggest threat to world peace because look, use your eyes, look at the map. WHY does the US have hundreds of bases all over the world? Why is it tipping the nuclear balance wildly by staging anti-missile defences right on Russia's borders in regions that were previously within the Soviet sphere of influence? Why has the US rejected the balance of power out of hand and pushed for absolute power? Trump says he wants to roll all this back. Great. Spectacularly good idea. He has little chance of achieving it because the warmongers can always create events on the ground that will force his hand, but at least he's not cheerleading for war. And no, attacking ISIS is not a war. They are stateless, they have no diplomatic legitimacy. Attacking Assad's forces - that's a war.

So yes, it's very much progress if tensions with Russia are calmed. I mean why wouldn't it be? Why does that question even need to be asked or answered?

Yeah....I don't think I need read any more on this one. You've said enough. One minute you have a problem with Clinton's 'mass murder' record and next you say it's a good idea for Trump to join Putin to help Assad bomb Syria some more.

Seems hypocritical.

Keep posting those videos though. Food for thought there at least.

[LDG]

:( Oh sod off 2016, now apparently my aunt has died :doh:
Hadn't seen her for years, was quite close to her and her family when I was a kid though. She was old as the hills, but still...
:rose:

Which one is she on that picture?






Sorry :hug:

[Goonermerree]

:( Oh sod off 2016, now apparently my aunt has died :doh:
Hadn't seen her for years, was quite close to her and her family when I was a kid though. She was old as the hills, but still...
:rose:

Sorry about that. The curse of 2016.

[Letters]

:lol: Yeah, can't believe she didn't make the cut.
Auntie Hazel :rose:

[Niall_Quinn]

Iran? Isn't Trump threatening to mess up the good terms by ripping up the nuke agreement? I really don't understand where it is you're coming from.

Yes, he wants to and CAN do that because Obama's deal is illegal. So that will likely happen. Again, listen to Trump and his concern with that deal is pretty clear. MONEY. That's all he really cares about regardless of the topic. He doesn't want to pay them billions for not developing the nuclear weapons they weren't developing in the first place. That money was a bribe to try to stay Iran's hand in Iraq and the surrounding states. Another massive Obama/ Clinton fuck-up. This pair makes George Bush look credible.

[GP]

My Aunt Marge doesn't have long left.

I can't believe she's not better.


In all seriousness though, I'm very sorry for your loss.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yeah....I don't think I need read any more on this one. You've said enough. One minute you have a problem with Clinton's 'mass murder' record and next you say it's a good idea for Trump to join Putin to help Assad bomb Syria some more.

Seems hypocritical.

Keep posting those videos though. Food for thought there at least.

You changed what I said, again. Entirely dishonest.

[Goonermerree]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37944473

Some MPs 'ready to vote against triggering Brexit'

Who saw that coming???

[Power n Glory]

Ok....in your own words.


You seem to have difficulty distinguishing white collar crime (aka standard business practices) from serious fucking shit that leaves hundreds of thousands of people dead. Whatever the reason people didn't bite on Clinton's rotten apple, the main thing is they didn't bite. That's important. Fewer Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis will die as a result and that's a good thing.


Again, there's a huge difference between some guy sounding off to get elected and a woman that is directly responsible for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of human beings. There just is. And if Trump carries on where Obama/ Clinton left off then sure, he joins the ranks of the war criminals and serial killers than we've seen stream through our hallowed parliaments over the decades. But right now there's simply no comparison. Why it even has to be explained that it's a good thing people rejected that woman is tough to understand. Reasoning seems to be, well maybe Trump is Hitler, therefore let's stick with the Hilter we know. So maybe Trump won't be Hitler. At least it's possible for that to happen, whereas with Clinton it's not. She's already joined that club and it can't be un-joined.

BUT


Trump has said he wants to work WITH Russia to bomb the shit out of ISIS. Right now the US is funding ISIS and bombing Assad's forces, which is why Russia has to be in there at all. Russia wouldn't have any problems if the yanks were bombing ISIS but instead they trying to overthrow Assad. All as part of the agenda spelled out in 2001.


And there we go again. I tell you what Trump actually said, in direct contradiction to what you implied, so that's done, shift goalposts and go again.

Assad, like any of the authoritarians in a region continuously destabilised by the world powers, is ruthless towards his opponents. But does he bomb his own people? Well yes he does now, following the US starting a civil war in his country and sending ISIS against him. That's what happens in a civil war. Did the Americans bomb and burn the shit out of civilians during their own civil war? Yes they did.

But was Assad a crazed tyrant happily bombing his people before the US intervened? Of course not and any fool can figure out what that bullshit is all about. First it was Saddam, then Gadaffi, now it is Assad and tomorrow it will be whoever we want it to be. Dictators don't bomb people to hold power because they wouldn't hold it for very long. Instead they arrest people, violate their human rights, lock them up as political prisoners, assassinate them. Just the same as the US does. In fact one Barak Obama is infamous for such behaviour.

However, now that the US has started this war and created ISIS, now that there's a chance to do something about it, yes, I think it would be a good idea to bomb the shit out of ISIS. And if we could avoid conflict with the Russians then that would be a great idea.



Because if the yanks stop bombing Assad's forces and stop funding ISIS and start bombing ISIS then the civil war they started in Syria can be quickly concluded and order restored. Otherwise it will drag with the ever increasing possibility of direct confrontation with Russia. The Turks have been trying to provoke that for months, another surrogate for the US of course. If there's another way to put ISIS back in the bottle then tell me.

I'm not being dishonest at all.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

:lol: Yeah, can't believe she didn't make the cut.
Auntie Hazel :rose:

Sorry to hear that, when we were much younger we assumed these people in our lives would be around forever

[Kano]

Like a great man once said:



:ninja:

That's the sad thing - it won't remain. It can't. As people point towards the unsustainably of the money flooding into the Premiership, that serves as a microcosm for capitalism as a whole. The whole system is creaking at the hinges and the standard of living continues to go down. What people are doing now is clamouring around for someone, anyone that they believe can provide something different to what they've experienced their whole lifetime. Young and old. Farage and Trump are desperate shouts from people whose fears are being exploited yes, but still have fears nonetheless, ignorant, racist, intelligent or stupid. When people realise that they've been duped yet again, the voting numbers will fall off the chart completely. And then it's a case of them or us. But it won't be pretty in the meantime.

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37944473

Some MPs 'ready to vote against triggering Brexit'

Who saw that coming???

Well of course. 48% of people voted to remain, most of London did.
Why would MPs in those constituencies vote to leave? If the referendum result was relatively close then so should the vote in parliament but I fully expect it to be passed.

[Kano]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37944473

Some MPs 'ready to vote against triggering Brexit'

Who saw that coming???

This is good stuff. This bullshit about the 'will of the people' being accepted and moving away from 'politics' as normal being revealed for what it is, if that occurs. Brexit will still happen because the vast majority of MP's understand they have too much to lose if they willingly open the door to chaos. That will have to be imposed on them in the end.

[The Emirates Gallactico]

Obviously most of the people protesting right now are morans. If half these imbeciles had actually worked harder before the election turning people out (Hillary will get less raw votes than Obama and especially suffered among millennials) then just maybe Trump wouldn't have won However, let's not pretend that these protests aren't unique and would have occurred had a non-fascist like Romney or Kasich had won. The reason why people are protesting is exactly because Trump has come into power on the back of demagoguery, jackassery and spreading seeds of hatred against certain minority groups.

What kind of example does it set to kids, heck in fact anyone, that you can behave like a complete douchebag, exploit your wealth & celebrity to abuse/grope woman, insult and demean large vulnerable sections of society etc etc ..... yet still rise to the most powerful position in the country? And like you saw with the increase in hate crimes after Brexit, you've seen a rise in hate crimes in America since as Trump has normalised that behaviour ...."If the president says it's fine to call Mexicans criminals and rapists, then why can't I do the same if not worse?"

It's all very well if your a white man who's in one of a few select groups that Trump didn't demean or blame for society's problems to go, "What are all these n***** and p*****" worried about? However if you are in one of those groups, you're going to be shitting yourself that Trump's going to keep blaming you when things go inevitably tits up and he can't fulfil even an eighth of his promises (e.g. bringing back Coal jobs ... wtf?) especially if you've already experienced more glares and abuse since Trump's ascension.

We (Arsenal fans) get riled up when we see a cunt like Mourinho win because we've been directly in the fire of his shitbaggery and seen him abuse someone we have respect for (Wenger); that's exactly what it's like for them in America except it's a million times worse and he has control over the entire military, FBI and every function of executive government.


/rant over

[LDG]

Phil Collins tickets on sale for Hyde Park, Letters.

Sorry I can't make it that day.

[Kano]

https://youtu.be/XnSGA4jPKbs

:bow:

[Xhaka Can’t]

I agree it is not unique to the left but in the last three elections, those mainly of the left remained in their echo chambers while those that won engaged with the voters and managed to convince them to support their cause. Thats why right has won recently.

You are being way too simplistic.

For instance had the left really been left in the US, Trump would have been up against Sanders.

In the U.K. the leader of the Labour Party while a left winger, simply had no credibility. And his replacement is worse precisely because Labour made the move to open up to the widest possible audience through the &#163;3 vote.

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161111/80e1caa27809b02411f514d7ffde5b24.jpg

[Goonermerree]

Leonard Cohen and Robert Vaughn succumb to 2016.:rose:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161111/80e1caa27809b02411f514d7ffde5b24.jpg

ha genius

[GP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw&feature=youtu.be

[Niall_Quinn]

Ok....in your own words.





BUT







I'm not being dishonest at all.

Indeed you are. You are trying to equate ISIS with Syria as if a US or Russian assault on ISIS would be an attack on Syria. That's the same as saying the British were attacking France on D-Day. Yes, technically they were waging war on French soil but they were fighting with French forces, not against them. But anyway, you already know that and that's not the aim of your various postings. Your aim is to suggest Trump is somehow in the same bracket as Clinton when it comes to warmongering and war crimes. And yet there is precisely zero evidence to support that suggestion. So instead you pretend there is some discrepancy in my argument.

[Coney]

Well of course. 48% of people voted to remain, most of London did.
Why would MPs in those constituencies vote to leave? If the referendum result was relatively close then so should the vote in parliament but I fully expect it to be passed.

In the US, Clinton got over 50% of the votes, Trump less than 50%. However, the president is actually voted for by the electoral college which he will win (on, weirdly, the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December which is their rule, believe it or not). And Farage will no doubt be happy for Trump becoming President and has said so. Except that in Britain, although Brexit got more than 50% of the vote, we have an electoral college called Parliament and they decide what happens and have done since the English Civil War. That decision by the judges was simply a clarification of how the British system of government works. It is ironic that the Brexiteers, wishing for British Law and British Governance to be supreme, are angry when British Law is upheld, not by European Court but by British Courts.

[Niall_Quinn]

I admit it's a trifle sarcastic, but it might as well be true if the solution is to give these people cooperation

I have no doubt the US is responsible both through incompetence and malfeasance of destabilising Syria, but the refugees flooding away from the country aren't just escaping from ISIS.

The Neo con solution was always direct intervention and leave a vacuum behind, but the Neo cons are relatively a new force...American foreign policy was largely using the military to back the potentates or better still put our fingers in our ears and say "sorry i can't hear you" when Russia fighters are "provoked and backed into a corner by NATO aggression" into bombing Aid convoys.

That seems to be the bottom line, American imperialism bad, Russian Imperialism? meh.....what you gonna do?

Does this explain the chain of US installations and the missile bases ringing Russia? Or the use of the defensive NATO as an offensive force? Not really. As I said, look at the map. The Russians don't need to be good guys for the Americans to be the aggressor.

"Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined."

Coy for Wikipedia to lump Russia in with Britain and France. Should we instead say NATO has hundreds of bases overseas, Russia has something like 10 IIRC, ALL within their sphere of influence? Probably.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Does this explain the chain of US installations and the missile bases ringing Russia? Or the use of the defensive NATO as an offensive force? Not really. As I said, look at the map. The Russians don't need to be good guys for the Americans to be the aggressor.

"Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined."

Coy for Wikipedia to lump Russia in with Britain and France. Should we instead say NATO has hundreds of bases overseas, Russia has something like 10 IIRC, ALL within their sphere of influence? Probably.

And US Installations near Russian territory does not justify land grabbing or acting as an aerial police force for Bashar Al-Assad.

So regardless of what ill the Americans have done, nothing indicates that cooperation with Russia is to anyone's benefit but that of an unpleasant kleptocratic regime.

[Niall_Quinn]

And US Installations near Russian territory does not justify land grabbing or acting as an aerial police force for Bashar Al-Assad.

So regardless of what ill the Americans have done, nothing indicates that cooperation with Russia is to anyone's benefit but that of an unpleasant kleptocratic regime.

The alternative being? really, I want to hear it.

[Letters]

Phil Collins tickets on sale for Hyde Park, Letters.

Sorry I can't make it that day.
Yes, saw that :lol:
Went for Robbie Williams instead :ninja:
My musical taste :bow:

[Power n Glory]

Indeed you are. You are trying to equate ISIS with Syria as if a US or Russian assault on ISIS would be an attack on Syria. That's the same as saying the British were attacking France on D-Day. Yes, technically they were waging war on French soil but they were fighting with French forces, not against them. But anyway, you already know that and that's not the aim of your various postings. Your aim is to suggest Trump is somehow in the same bracket as Clinton when it comes to warmongering and war crimes. And yet there is precisely zero evidence to support that suggestion. So instead you pretend there is some discrepancy in my argument.

:doh: thin. Very thin.

[Niall_Quinn]

:doh: thin. Very thin.

Throwaway comment and smiley. But nothing else.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The alternative being? really, I want to hear it.

The alternative is to stop pretending the Russian intervention in Syria has anything to do with ISIS, they are there to deal with all of Assads enemies - fundamentalist death cult or not. Impose the no fly zone, remove Assad and not make the same mistake with Iraq by dismantling the apparatus of state that exists in Damascus.

Keep a security force that works alongside both Syrian defence forces and the Syrian free army to protect the country.

Of course there is more to it than that, especially the Kurdish-Turkish dispute. But I think it's pretty glib to say the only alternative is for people is to live under the thrall of a grotesque dictator sponsored by a kleptocratic state.

[Niall_Quinn]

The alternative is to stop pretending the Russian intervention in Syria has anything to do with ISIS, they are there to deal with all of Assads enemies - fundamentalist death cult or not. Impose the no fly zone, remove Assad and not make the same mistake with Iraq by dismantling the apparatus of state that exists in Damascus.

Keep a security force that works alongside both Syrian defence forces and the Syrian free army to protect the country.

Of course there is more to it than that, especially the Kurdish-Turkish dispute. But I think it's pretty glib to say the only alternative is for people is to live under the thrall of a grotesque dictator sponsored by a kleptocratic state.

Regime change. I should have known. And it will work this time, because?

[Power n Glory]

Throwaway comment and smiley. But nothing else.

It shouldn't take a genius to work out the hypocrisy. Here I am thinking you're concerned about loss of human lives and rights. :doh: Silly me.

So you're battering Hillary by saying she's a career criminal, mass murderer, etc, yet you're here suggesting Trump should support Vladimir Putin and Assad? Aren't they career criminals and just as bad... sorry.. worse than the Clinton? Where is the attack on your conscience since you couldn't bear to see Hilary voted in? You made the point of Trump only committing white collar crime and its 'a sign of hope' that the people of a America chose not to vote in Hilary, she supports Saudi Arabia an oppressive regime... Etc. So where is the progress if it moves to supporting Russia and Assad with their oppression? Trump having no record of committing war crimes has to be one of the laziest arguments of them all. It shouldn't take a genius to work out why either. Do I really need to explain why he hasn't? Letters made an attempt earlier but that flew right over your head, yet he's the 'thick' one. ;) Regardless of the fact that a man with no political record is now President, he has declared his intention to 'bomb the shit out of ISIS and his supporters cheered. Encouraging. Very encouraging. They're learning.

Now, trying to spin who and what we're bombing...' we're bombing ISIS not Syria'. :doh: Oh dear. Didn't we have the same line trotted out about the 'war on terror' and Al Qaeda? Also, since ISIS aren't only based in Syria, doesn't that mean more bombs dropped in Iraq and elsewhere? But it's the 'War on ISIS/Terror'. Same difference.

I said from earlier it was pointless forming arguments based on who is the more moral candidate. Now look at this web of bullshit. Quick to explain the intricacies of why working with Russia and Assad is for the greater good. Lord help us.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37953528

Trump wants to retain the legislation that states that insurance companies cannot deny people coverage on the basis of pre existing conditions.

Have to say, fair play to him if he means that.

[Goonermerree]

It is good, but there a re many things that Trump is going to have to rethink.

[Letters]

It's starting to seem like he's not going to be quite the ogre I feared.
The worry though is I think people voted for the ogre. They wanted the ogre and that troubles me about America.

[Goonermerree]

Clearly he can't deliver on many things, the wall etc. I would expect his supporters to be a bit miffed about that, but they'll just make excuses for him probably. I think even Trump has realised that he can't be the maverick he was during the campaign, his victory speech showed that. But I would be angry that I elected somebody from what they were saying only to find out that it was a pack of lies.

[GP]

But I would be angry that I elected somebody from what they were saying only to find out that it was a pack of lies.

Just like Brexit.

[Niall_Quinn]

It shouldn't take a genius to work out the hypocrisy. Here I am thinking you're concerned about loss of human lives and rights. :doh: Silly me.

So you're battering Hillary by saying she's a career criminal, mass murderer, etc, yet you're here suggesting Trump should support Vladimir Putin and Assad? Aren't they career criminals and just as bad... sorry.. worse than the Clinton? Where is the attack on your conscience since you couldn't bear to see Hilary voted in? You made the point of Trump only committing white collar crime and its 'a sign of hope' that the people of a America chose not to vote in Hilary, she supports Saudi Arabia an oppressive regime... Etc. So where is the progress if it moves to supporting Russia and Assad with their oppression? Trump having no record of committing war crimes has to be one of the laziest arguments of them all. It shouldn't take a genius to work out why either. Do I really need to explain why he hasn't? Letters made an attempt earlier but that flew right over your head, yet he's the 'thick' one. ;) Regardless of the fact that a man with no political record is now President, he has declared his intention to 'bomb the shit out of ISIS and his supporters cheered. Encouraging. Very encouraging. They're learning.

Now, trying to spin who and what we're bombing...' we're bombing ISIS not Syria'. :doh: Oh dear. Didn't we have the same line trotted out about the 'war on terror' and Al Qaeda? Also, since ISIS aren't only based in Syria, doesn't that mean more bombs dropped in Iraq and elsewhere? But it's the 'War on ISIS/Terror'. Same difference.

I said from earlier it was pointless forming arguments based on who is the more moral candidate. Now look at this web of bullshit. Quick to explain the intricacies of why working with Russia and Assad is for the greater good. Lord help us.

Your latest alteration of the record designed to suit your own argument.


So you're battering Hillary by saying she's a career criminal, mass murderer, etc, yet you're here suggesting Trump should support Vladimir Putin and Assad?

Nowhere did I say Trump should support Putin and Assad. I said he should cooperate with Russia to destroy ISIS and I also said he should avoid conflict with Russia for what should be obvious reasons. You know, you are behaving a bit like the mainstream media and how they covered Trump during the election. Take a word, spin a sentence, write the story.

Then you progress with a whole moral piece based on the assertion you created. Then a wink and a condescending inversion, a desperate plea for allies to dive in presumably for safety in numbers, more smilies, then a (I assume serious) attempt to equate the ISIS situation with Blair and Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq which I'm guessing you borrowed from one of my own responses, suitably inverting the concept and taking it out of context.

But the last part seems to be both related to the debate and a fair reflection of what I have said. Thank you for that.

Yes. Correct. We should work with the government of Syria and work with the Russians to destroy ISIS. OR, my preference, negotiate with Russia for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria. It is imperative we stop funding and arming ISIS and equally imperative we stop attacking the one force on the ground that will ultimately finish ISIS off, assuming we don't want our own forces stuck in the region for decades. It is US intervention and subterfuge that has elevated ISIS beyond rabble status in the first place, the very reason why ISIS now has to be driven back and defeated. There are some indications the Obama regime has realised this over the last few months and may indeed have changed their strategy from attacking Assad, in some instances at least, to containing ISIS. Could this change have anything to do with the warmonger Clinton having left State to focus on higher office? Speculation but an interesting coincidence.

The aim I believe we should be pursuing is to avoid conflict with Russia. The aim currently being pursued, one you seem to support by implication, seems to have no purpose that is achievable. If we look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria it is obvious these grand plans for regime change have produced the reverse outcomes, assuming the original intent was not to create chaos and drag Russia into conflict. But that latter possibility, while seeming insane, may well be the true agenda of the crazies dictating US foreign policy. Perhaps they have equated the situation now with Afghanistan in the 80s where the likes of Brzezinski takes credit for creating and arming terror groups, calling them freedom fighters and setting them against the Russians. This, he feels, ultimately led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. He boasts about his achievements in his book, The Grand Chess Board. You can see the mentality of these lunatics just from the title of their confessions. Of course he'll never tell you that therein lay the seed for Al'Qaida. That part is conveniently glossed over.

So skipping over all your fluster and bluster and going straight to the one relevant point you did raise, you now have my answer. So can I ask, what is your view on possible solutions to the problem as it stands?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Clearly he can't deliver on many things, the wall etc. I would expect his supporters to be a bit miffed about that, but they'll just make excuses for him probably. I think even Trump has realised that he can't be the maverick he was during the campaign, his victory speech showed that. But I would be angry that I elected somebody from what they were saying only to find out that it was a pack of lies.

And that's why people are going to be very angry, for financial reasons the wall and the deportations won't happen

Stripping Obama care completely would take years upon years, and the majority of the country want healthcare coverage they just don't like the high premiums.

The pro free trade congress will make it hard for him to ditch NAFTA and TPP (which is a shame, as actually neither would be a bad thing).

Tax cuts, conservative Supreme Court appointments which may lead to the overturn of Roe v Wade

The biggest question mark is how he will use the NSA, Obama was wrong totally wrong not to dismantle the vast surveillance network and I'm sure it was far from used responsibly when he was president (because it's not possible to have such apparatus and use it responsibly). Lord knows what Trump will do with it.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37953528

Trump wants to retain the legislation that states that insurance companies cannot deny people coverage on the basis of pre existing conditions.

Have to say, fair play to him if he means that.

His big challenge will be to find some mechanism that prevents the drug companies from continuing their cartel. If he can set them against each other and generate competition then he'll be able to instigate something other than straight robbery of the people. His ever bigger challenge is all of those congressman that love taking drug money to keep their sorry arses in office.

[Niall_Quinn]

And that's why people are going to be very angry, for financial reasons the wall and the deportations won't happen

Stripping Obama care completely would take years upon years, and the majority of the country want healthcare coverage they just don't like the high premiums.

The pro free trade congress will make it hard for him to ditch NAFTA and TPP (which is a shame, as actually neither would be a bad thing).

Tax cuts, conservative Supreme Court appointments which may lead to the overturn of Roe v Wade

The biggest question mark is how he will use the NSA, Obama was wrong totally wrong not to dismantle the vast surveillance network and I'm sure it was far from used responsibly when he was president (because it's not possible to have such apparatus and use it responsibly). Lord knows what Trump will do with it.

Considering there are levels of security clearance above the president's pay grade I'm fairly sure it won't be up to him what happens with the NSA, just as it wouldn't have been within Obama's remit to dictate to the security and intelligence services. There must be a ton of dirt on Trump.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

His big challenge will be to find some mechanism that prevents the drug companies from continuing their cartel. If he can set them against each other and generate competition then he'll be able to instigate something other than straight robbery of the people. His ever bigger challenge is all of those congressman that love taking drug money to keep their sorry arses in office.

Whilst I totally agree that would be a good thing, I'm not confident that such a thing would happen under Trump. On one hand he isn't beholden to lobbyists himself so there is nothing stopping him, but you'd have to factor in does he give a shit?

[Niall_Quinn]

Details of the 2016 vote rigging campaigns are now starting to emerge. Vote rigging is a very serious business in the US and rigging campaigns usually begin at least 2 years in advance of the election. This time it seems the Repubs might have won by a narrow margin. Palast has done his usual stand up job of tracking them over the 4 year period and estimates they probably managed to take around 1 million blacks off the register, with focus being on the key battleground states. The Bush operation, working in tandem with the Democrats this time around, seemed to achieve lower numbers with their main focus being getting some half a million dead voters onto the registers supplemented by the traditional bussing of repeat voters around the key states on election day. Pennsylvania was the key Deomocrat focus. Ohio and Michigan key for the Repubs.

From what I can gather a +400K win for the Repubs. Way to go guys, a great comeback from the trouncing you took last time around. Just goes to show that planning pays and if you keep your chin up in the darkest hour then any nefarious, underhanded bullshit is possible.

[Letters]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGZRRtD6Vk

[Niall_Quinn]

Whilst I totally agree that would be a good thing, I'm not confident that such a thing would happen under Trump. On one hand he isn't beholden to lobbyists himself so there is nothing stopping him, but you'd have to factor in does he give a shit?

Trump's a narcissist. He'll want to be known as the greatest president of all time. That will be important to him. He's not a fool but I suspect he thinks he can bring his bull in a china shop style to the Whitehouse. If you watched him at Congress yesterday he looked small and insignificant. For all his carving up of Ryan on the campaign trail it was Ryan who looked the business as Trump sat there to one side. If Trump though the media was dirty then he's in for a very nasty shock when he gets some experience of the real pros. I don't think he'll get a chance to give a shit. He'll be embroiled in the politics before he knows it and the first year will be spent trying to find a solid footing on any issue. And I wouldn't assume he didn't have significant funding behind him during the campaign. There's a lot of talk about how much he personally brought to the table, some saying half of the 100 mill that seems to be the agreed figure. Others saying even less. Clever tactic though but it doesn't help us learn who was actually behind him. We'll know soon enough. Wasn't Soros, that's for sure LOL. That was nice, Soros getting a kick in the nuts.

[GP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCabT_O0YSM

[Niall_Quinn]

Here's how the hopelessly biased BBC headlined Trump's plans to prevent a return to the drug companies barring citizens based on pre-existing conditions.

http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a433/qwerty12343/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-12%20at%2013.25.19_zpsngdul6y9.png

What a horrendous organisation the BBC is, and we are forced by government thugs to pay for this propaganda.

[Kano]

#stopfundinghate

Oh please fuck off and die

[Niall_Quinn]

The whole thing is just a sheep farm. All of it.

[Goonermerree]

Oh please fuck off and die[/QUOTE]

Who, What? The BBC?

[Power n Glory]

Your latest alteration of the record designed to suit your own argument.



Nowhere did I say Trump should support Putin and Assad. I said he should cooperate with Russia to destroy ISIS and I also said he should avoid conflict with Russia for what should be obvious reasons. You know, you are behaving a bit like the mainstream media and how they covered Trump during the election. Take a word, spin a sentence, write the story.

Then you progress with a whole moral piece based on the assertion you created. Then a wink and a condescending inversion, a desperate plea for allies to dive in presumably for safety in numbers, more smilies, then a (I assume serious) attempt to equate the ISIS situation with Blair and Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq which I'm guessing you borrowed from one of my own responses, suitably inverting the concept and taking it out of context.

But the last part seems to be both related to the debate and a fair reflection of what I have said. Thank you for that.

Yes. Correct. We should work with the government of Syria and work with the Russians to destroy ISIS. OR, my preference, negotiate with Russia for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria. It is imperative we stop funding and arming ISIS and equally imperative we stop attacking the one force on the ground that will ultimately finish ISIS off, assuming we don't want our own forces stuck in the region for decades. It is US intervention and subterfuge that has elevated ISIS beyond rabble status in the first place, the very reason why ISIS now has to be driven back and defeated. There are some indications the Obama regime has realised this over the last few months and may indeed have changed their strategy from attacking Assad, in some instances at least, to containing ISIS. Could this change have anything to do with the warmonger Clinton having left State to focus on higher office? Speculation but an interesting coincidence.

The aim I believe we should be pursuing is to avoid conflict with Russia. The aim currently being pursued, one you seem to support by implication, seems to have no purpose that is achievable. If we look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria it is obvious these grand plans for regime change have produced the reverse outcomes, assuming the original intent was not to create chaos and drag Russia into conflict. But that latter possibility, while seeming insane, may well be the true agenda of the crazies dictating US foreign policy. Perhaps they have equated the situation now with Afghanistan in the 80s where the likes of Brzezinski takes credit for creating and arming terror groups, calling them freedom fighters and setting them against the Russians. This, he feels, ultimately led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. He boasts about his achievements in his book, The Grand Chess Board. You can see the mentality of these lunatics just from the title of their confessions. Of course he'll never tell you that therein lay the seed for Al'Qaida. That part is conveniently glossed over.

So skipping over all your fluster and bluster and going straight to the one relevant point you did raise, you now have my answer. So can I ask, what is your view on possible solutions to the problem as it stands?

Why are you playing semantics? :lol: Removing Putin and Assad from your wording doesn't soften your position. And you say I'm worse than the media! I never once proposed to know the answer to all this and what I think will work is irrelevant to the debate. Stop deflecting. Reflect on what you've said about Clinton and then think again the argument you're presenting.

[Kano]

Oh please fuck off and die

Who, What? The BBC?[/QUOTE]

The BBC can definitely get in that line too.

The comment was directed at that hashtag and the people being tricked into believing it's a good cause. Providing free PR for companies on their days off.

[Kano]

It's starting to seem like he's not going to be quite the ogre I feared.
The worry though is I think people voted for the ogre. They wanted the ogre and that troubles me about America.

That's quite a turnaround in a few days to be honest. Although Trump did say the same thing a year ago. It just wasn't reported in the mainstream media because they were preoccupied with shifting units rather then informing its readers.

People voted for Trump because going for the exact same thing as we've seen for the past half a century is a guaranteed vote for failure. They'll find out the same about his guy too but then the options after are getting less and less optimistic in the short term.

[Niall_Quinn]

Why are you playing semantics? :lol: Removing Putin and Assad from your wording doesn't soften your position. And you say I'm worse than the media! I never once proposed to know the answer to all this and what I think will work is irrelevant to the debate. Stop deflecting. Reflect on what you've said about Clinton and then think again the argument you're presenting.

I didn't compare your performance to that of the mainstream media because you don't understand the subject and therefore don't have a position, I made the comparison based on your willingness to take a statement, change it or place it out of context and then criticise it. I'm fine with my position thanks but if you find the time to do anything other than bluster around then I'm willing to listen to your ideas.

[Niall_Quinn]

Added to that, this is just the Brexit tantrum again isn't it? Brexit, Brexit, Brexit, what have the racists done????? We're all going to die! And now, Trump, Trump, Trump, stupid racists! We're all going to die!

Again!

[Niall_Quinn]

Some real revolutionary talk hidden in here. Trump and Bernie. If only that could happen and if you are going to do government for the people then at the very least do it for the people. Max Keiser's gloating is delicious.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmL-pFaVA3A

[Letters]

So let me see if I've got this right. The whole thing was rigged so that Trump couldn't win, wouldn't be allowed to win according to Assange, and now Trump has won it's because of vote rigging for Trump.

:wacko:

[Niall_Quinn]

So let me see if I've got this right. The whole thing was rigged so that Trump couldn't win, wouldn't be allowed to win according to Assange, and now Trump has won it's because of vote rigging for Trump.

:wacko:

Nooooooo.

Assange's personal opinions have absolutely no connection to the result of the election. I wonder what strange and convoluted point people are trying to make when they raise this? Possibly it's some attempt to suggest that because Assange's personal opinions are incorrect therefore the mountain of evidence dumped on the criminal Clinton is incorrect. Not so. The two things aren't related.

And vote rigging is a standard part of the US election, ever since the Bush gang started running and probably well before that. This time the Bush gang were working for Killary. The amusing aspect of this is the Repugs conducted their rigging operations on the basis Cruz would be running. But the stupid bastards ended up helping Trump :haha:

[Letters]

Any basis for the assertion about vote rigging?

[Niall_Quinn]

Any basis for the assertion about vote rigging?

Yes, I use facts as a basis.

These facts are easy to find but if you need I can spoon feed you, just ask.

[Letters]

if you need I can spoon feed you, just ask.
Yes please. :tiphat:

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes please. :tiphat:

Well I guess I'll have to supply a mainstream source or else you'll be incapable of accepting the information on its merits. So the best source for this would be Greg Palast who has been tracking US election fraud for several cycles now.


Gregory Allyn "Greg" Palast (born June 26, 1952)[1] is a New York Times-bestselling author[2] and a freelance journalist for the BBC[3] as well as the British newspaper The Guardian.[4] His work frequently focuses on corporate malfeasance but has also been known to work with labor unions and consumer advocacy groups.

He'll give you a solid grounding on the various rigging techniques. Probably start with this cycle and Operation Crosscheck.
http://www.gregpalast.com/rolling-stone-expose-gops-secret-plan-steal-vote/

For centralised rigging methods using the electronic voting machines see BlackBoxVoting.org, another operation that has been tracking vote rigging through several cycles: http://blackboxvoting.org/

After those two you should have more than enough information to dig deeper if you are so inclined.

[Power n Glory]

I didn't compare your performance to that of the mainstream media because you don't understand the subject and therefore don't have a position, I made the comparison based on your willingness to take a statement, change it or place it out of context and then criticise it. I'm fine with my position thanks but if you find the time to do anything other than bluster around then I'm willing to listen to your ideas.

Still deflecting. Come on NQ. You can do better than that. Don't have a position on what? I understand the contradiction presented no matter how you try to spin it.

[Kano]

Surely Michael Moore is overdue a heart attack?

[Niall_Quinn]

I like Matt Taibbi, he's a good investigative journalist. But like most of the media he's so butt hurt at the moment that he can't see straight. He clings to the notion that Republicans quietly accepting mass immigration because they are junkies for cheap or slave labour or Democrats preferring it because it seals in an ever growing vote is some sort of "conspiracy theory" when it is far easier to examine the evidence and see the crappy jobs, the multi-job families, the densely packed immigrant ghettos at in the urban centres. And what about the "conspiracy theory" of the bankster bailouts? The evidence of collusion and corruption at the heart pf the establishment is overwhelming and yet the media still pretends it can't see it. Of course they can see it because they are part of it and that's the real reason why these things go unmentioned. Taibbi, up until this point, has not been afraid to delve into reality. But it seems reality is getting a bit too real these days.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/president-trump-how-america-got-it-so-wrong-w449783

[Niall_Quinn]

Still deflecting. Come on NQ. You can do better than that. Don't have a position on what? I understand the contradiction presented no matter how you try to spin it.

I've very clearly stated my own opinion but not only do you refuse to address it, you've busied yourself changing it. And you have no opinion of your own on the matter. So I'm wondering what it is you are bringing to this debate? Not much.

There is no spin whatsoever on my part. I have stated my position clearly and more than once. If you feel there's a contradiction in that position then point it out. So far all you have done is change what I have said and then run off on some outraged tangent. So now try sticking to what I have said, point out the contradiction clearly and let's see if we can take it from there.

[Niall_Quinn]

Here's the left wing media's reporting of the violent protests taking place in the States right now as "Democrats" protest the outcome of a democratic election. Jeez, is this funny or not funny? I can't figure it out. There are a 1,001 useful things these turds could be protesting but instead they are crying about the very system they all sing and dance about right up until the point it delivers a result they don't want to see.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/day-1-in-trumps-america-highlights-racist-acts-violent-threats-w449787

Remind anyone of the post Brexit nonsense? A desperate cataloguing of the everyday incidents that unfortunately occur in every country, normally not even reported on a national level but now spun up into a crisis. And in 2 weeks? Well we have the advantage here in the UK of knowing what happens in 2 weeks. It all goes back to normal. Fucking stupid libtards. If you don't like democracy then don't endorse it you fucking morons.

[GP]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

[Power n Glory]

I've very clearly stated my own opinion but not only do you refuse to address it, you've busied yourself changing it. And you have no opinion of your own on the matter. So I'm wondering what it is you are bringing to this debate? Not much.

There is no spin whatsoever on my part. I have stated my position clearly and more than once. If you feel there's a contradiction in that position then point it out. So far all you have done is change what I have said and then run off on some outraged tangent. So now try sticking to what I have said, point out the contradiction clearly and let's see if we can take it from there.

Go back to explaining your problem with Hilary again and why the vote for Trump was a sign of progress. Retrace how this all started.

[Niall_Quinn]

Go back to explaining your problem with Hilary again and why the vote for Trump was a sign of progress. Retrace how this all started.

No, this isn't a dance. Make your point clearly and dispense with all the wax-on, wax-off bullshit. Either you have a point to make or you don't. Go ahead.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

Stupid bastard Comey. He seized on Clinton's blatant criminality and turned it into an election issue. Fucker.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/11FBD/production/_92416637_036360935-1.jpg

The definition of stupid.

YES - he IS your president you silly cunt. If YOU want to get involved in the political process and YOU go ahead and play let's vote for president and YOU know the rules then, in fact YES, he IS your president, you silly cunt. If you don't like democracy then don't play it.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'd still give her one though.

(But not the one behind her - shit...)

[Kano]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

Well of course she would. Although the Dems had 8 years in there, so it was the other lots turn to take the heat.

Bill is one of the happiest men in America right now.

[Niall_Quinn]

Liberals calling for revolution.....but none of them believe in owning guns, so good luck with that

:haha:

[Power n Glory]

No, this isn't a dance. Make your point clearly and dispense with all the wax-on, wax-off bullshit. Either you have a point to make or you don't. Go ahead.

The nerve to accuse me of switching goal posts and being dishonest.



Then you progress with a whole moral piece based on the assertion you created.

I didn't create this from thin air. The moral aspect is what you started leading with. See below.


Again, there's a huge difference between some guy sounding off to get elected and a woman that is directly responsible for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of human beings. There just is. And if Trump carries on where Obama/ Clinton left off then sure, he joins the ranks of the war criminals and serial killers than we've seen stream through our hallowed parliaments over the decades. But right now there's simply no comparison. Why it even has to be explained that it's a good thing people rejected that woman is tough to understand. Reasoning seems to be, well maybe Trump is Hitler, therefore let's stick with the Hilter we know. So maybe Trump won't be Hitler. At least it's possible for that to happen, whereas with Clinton it's not. She's already joined that club and it can't be un-joined.



What are you on about? This is a simple concept. Clinton has committed crimes against humanity. Trump hasn't. He might, most American presidents do. But he hasn't yet whereas Clinton has. So don't vote for the one who has. Don't vote for anyone preferably, but definitely don't vote for the bitch who kills people. What is it with politics that makes people forget these human fundamentals?


One - I don't see how voting for Trump is a sign that there is hope for the American people. Redeemed from what? You may have to explain that one further.

Two - After cooperating with the Russians (Putin) and the Syrian Government (Assad) to destroy IS what next? Assad's a war criminal and so is Putin. We ignore Assad and leave him be? We try to avoid conflict with Russia but does that mean turning a blind eye to Ukraine and future acts of aggression? I'm unsure of Russia's agenda with Syria, you may have to explain, you'll well versed, but how can some form of an allegiance be a sign of redemption? Again, I'm not saying I have a solution to world peace. :lol: That's an argument you've created and I don't think it's possible.

[Niall_Quinn]

The nerve to accuse me of switching goal posts and being dishonest.



I didn't create this from thin air. The moral aspect is what you started leading with. See below.






One - I don't see how voting for Trump is a sign that there is hope for the American people. Redeemed from what? You may have to explain that one further.

Two - After cooperating with the Russians (Putin) and the Syrian Government (Assad) to destroy IS what next? Assad's a war criminal and so is Putin. We ignore Assad and leave him be? We try to avoid conflict with Russia but does that mean turning a blind eye to Ukraine and future acts of aggression? I'm unsure of Russia's agenda with Syria, you may have to explain, you'll well versed, but how can some form of an allegiance be a sign of redemption? Again, I'm not saying I have a solution to world peace. :lol: That's an argument you've created and I don't think it's possible.

Surely the passages you have quoted are simple to comprehend? I'm not sure how to state it more clearly. Clinton is a war criminal, Trump isn't. Her crimes in Libya are documented and her policy in Syria is more of the same with the added danger of a confrontational approach towards Russia. Insane. There's nothing at all that can be documented related to Trump in terms of war crimes, obviously because he's not even the president yet but this is a fact nonetheless. If he engages in the same shit as Clinton then he'd be a war criminal too. But the fact is, as things stand, he hasn't and he isn't. In moral terms and whether this weighed on the voters' minds or not, whether intentional or not, the Americans did not elect a war criminal and that surely has to be a very good thing? Or put another way, what a statement it would have been had they elected a woman that is guilty of crimes against humanity.

My comment was a personal one. I'm relieved a creature like Clinton hasn't been able to behave in the manner she has behaved and then be rewarded with the presidency. But there's more to it than that. In both the US and Europe the war criminals in charge failed to persuade their citizens to go to war with Iran and to a lesser degree failed to persuade the citizens to support a full scale war against Syria. It at least suggests some of the people paid attention to what has happened in Iraq. Blair is loathed for being a liar and a war criminal. Bush is not as unpopular as Blair but his legacy is tied intimately to the grand failure in Iraq and the lies that led to the loss of so many lives and so many resources. Clinton easily sits in the company of these criminals. She's "more of the same", the establishment in the eyes of a large segment of the American electorate. With these three criminals you get the neoliberals/neocons as part of the deal. That is what has been rejected in the US. The warmongers and their plans for global supremacy, their "full spectrum dominance", their American exceptionalism.

This is all tied to the US domestic economy. First Ron Paul gained traction with the notion that "blood and treasure" should not be thrown at crazy globalist schemes, not just because of the neglect at home and the waste overseas but also because the blowback generated a cycle of increasing violence and increasing loss. Trump's slogan is America First. He's talking about jobs, the rejuvenation of the domestic infrastructure, better relations with adversaries thus implying less conflict. Now whether he follows through on any of this is another matter entirely, but the fact is he's been elected on the strength of these promises so this at least suggests it's what the people want. And if that's true then finally, at last! It has taken 30 years to go from, "Kick their chicken Shi'ite asses!", to a far more sober realisation that global war by proxy and potentially direct confrontation with Russia is probably not a great idea.

There's another important side to this too. The cheerleaders for war, the mainstream media, have been entirely discredited. Their subscriptions are on life support, their advertising revenues in the gutter. They are dying. This is excellent news as for-profit warmongers such as Clinton have a much tougher time pushing their crude propaganda. Iraq started the funeral for the mainstream media. The large number of people who saw through that utter bullshit and took to other venues, such as the Internet, to expose the mainstream laid the ground for an alternative media that will soon surpass the mainstream in terms of audience numbers. It is no coincidence Ron Paul and Donald Trump dominated the modern outlets and got their message through despite the open hostility and brutal lies and propaganda of the mainstream.

So this is where I find encouragement on a moral level. The rejection of the establishment and the warmongers that have driven the agenda for so long and the slow death of their media cheerleaders and the corresponding rise of an alternative media freed from the establishment gatekeepers.

That's about as detailed as I can go without writing a book. I would hope ANYONE who wants peace and prosperity is aligned with that section of American society that has expressed a desire for the same. I'm afraid writing these people off as racists and misogynists is just silly. Sure, it's nationalism but nationalism is only a dirty word because the liberals and their mainstream media worked hard with their slurs against the idea of nation as they pushed their globalist agendas. What we have seen though is everyday people breaking out of the programming, despite the power of the establishment aligned against them, despite the endless propaganda of the mainstream media. A majority now want their country back, a majority want fewer or no wars, a majority has dismissed globalisation and all the injustices it brings. Brexit is progress. Trump is progress. Whenever you turn away from war and theft you have progressed. That doesn't mean you have reached Nirvana but you have to stop shooting yourself in the foot before you can walk anywhere.

My own views on Trump is that, of course, he's no racist, no Hitler, I mean FFS can we all grow up for a minute? But he's also no Republican so he'll struggle against the forces within his own party that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. But, for a change, there are millions of eyes on this president that are focused on policies instead of bullshit like, "first black president", "first woman president" (which is what the establishment play was about this time around btw). If Trump doesn't deliver, millions of people will notice. If Trump doesn't deliver because he is consistently blocked by his own party then people will notice. There's more chance than ever, albeit a slim one, that this guy might just have enough support to get something done...

HENCE THE TERROR OF THE LIBERAL ELITE...

.., hence the tears, the hysterics, the futile marches and protests which are really about their own arrogance and complacency. They are on a precipice, screaming. If things go well they could be pushed over the edge never to return. Probably wishful thinking on my part but a slim chance is better than no chance at all.

Even if Trump fails completely, if he demonstrates he's just another charlatan seeking power on the back of empty promises then we'll soon know just how serious his current supporters are. If they settle for that and go back to business as usual then you win, the status quo will slip back into gear and we likely won't have a chance for progress in another century. But if the people say well that's enough of that, we gave your shitty political systems one last chance and you blew it, well then we move to interesting times that provide the possibility of real change and real progress. And sure, you can't get there without upheaval, and yes that could be a nasty business. But any more nasty than what we have done to Iraq? Libya? Syria? Afghanistan? I doubt it. There must eventually come a time when we cease building our own security on the back of the victims we create elsewhere and instead build it in cooperation with the people we share the planet with. You'll hear snakes hiss their messages that death and mayhem are the only guarantees for future security and prosperity, but we've been down that route and where is our peace? Where is our prosperity? Isn't it true that the status quo has delivered one notable outcome? Great inequality. It has failed, it has been exposed. And about time too.

Which leads to Russia and Syria. What we do there is help get rid of that ISIS shite we created (starting way, way back when the British felt entitled to rule the world), and then we get our arses out of other peoples countries. Full stop. This doesn't mean we hold joint operations with the Russians and invite them over for team (although we were happy to do that with Stalin in WWII so let's stop with crocodile morality), but we can stop bombing Assad's forces so the Syrians can turn their full weight against ISIS. The Russians HAVE to be there to prevent the collapse of a state they have a traditional relationship with, just as we have our rotten relationships with terror states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar (so stop it again with the mock outrage), but they can't afford to be there and they want to be out of there as fast as possible - hence their partial withdrawal at a time when withdrawal made no sense.

ISIS is committing the vast majority of atrocities in Syria (and wherever they happen to be). The Russians, Syrians AND YES, the UK and the US (again, time to grow up) are also committing atrocities too but this is what happens during war. Every war. When civilians get caught in the crossfire the shooting doesn't stop. I think the statistic for combat casualties and civilian casualties in war is 1:15. Horrendous, but now that we've started all these wars in the Middle East (WE as in US, WE started all these wars), whether we are horrified or delighted with the realities of war those realities still exist. So we can all shout at each other, you did this, you did that. Or we can resolve to end the carnage as soon as humanly possible.

The ONLY sane option then is for combatants to reach some sort of agreement where all resources can be focused on destroying what is the significant threat of ISIS and returning some degree of stability to the country. What does that get us? First, the destruction of ISIS, everyone benefits from that (provided Trump isn't some neocon cuckoo). Next a reduction in tensions with Russia, again everyone benefits from that. Whatever else happens, these are two very worthwhile outcomes.

OR, we can sit there while people die daily, calling each other names and making stupid threats that if carried out will provoke global war. The Clinton plan. No, it really is. Go and look at her policy. The insane bitch. No-fly zones that if violated will result in shoot-downs, even if these are Russian aircraft. Do you get that? Shooting at Russian aircraft. And the Russians would then respond, how? By doing as they are ordered? This is the kind of brinksmanship that moves war beyond the control of the rational and into the realm of the inevitable. It's HUGE that Clinton was defeated. It could just have saved all our lives.

After ISIS is destroyed or at least dispersed, then comes the uncertain part and that's where the UN has to show some balls and stop being a puppet of the US for a change. The Trump factor may or may not come into play once again. We just don't know. But anyway, the US and Russia must be held to account by the legal body that is supposed to preside over these things. If neither agree to leave, which they should according to the law (and not some bullshit political interpretation of the law) then the UN has to intervene and stabilise the situation on the ground. Far from ideal but the alternative is allowing Assad the opportunity to enact revenge against his internal enemies. As I understand it, this is precisely why we have a UN. Not to take sides and provide political cover for war crimes (see Iraq) but to respond to humanitarian crises with the full weight and authority of a unified global community. Time for the UN to do its fucking job and if it can't do that job then disband it.

I haven't mentioned the French. Scumbags. Little weasels who have provoked half the shit that's going on in the Middle East. I haven't mentioned China who are always looking to capitalise on the follies of their adversaries. I haven't mentioned Iran, their ambitions need to be contained too. Trump is right on the money here, don't give them huge amounts of cash FFS. This will stabilise their economy and allow them to commit more resources to undermining the region. They should be made to come to the table like anyone else, without the bribes. Crucial to all of this though is assurances from the US that its crackpot plan to sweep through the Middle East overthrowing governments has finally come to an end. If that guarantee is placed on the table then all else is possible. There will be no perfect outcomes. Dictators all over the region will remain in power and will have to be acknowledged. That's the reality of decades of prior interventions by the major powers and those mistakes aren't easily undone. So we hold our noses in the interests of a wider peace. There is no other option.

And then we put an end to all the stupid sanctions that have forced the poor in the target nations into even deeper poverty and driven them right into the arms of the extremists we claim we want to defeat. Those policies were deliberate btw. It's difficult to create a rabid terrorist movement when people are prosperous. Deliberate. That shit has to stop. So that will mean Trump has to develop some sort of working relationship with his intelligence services that right now are pretty much a law unto themselves. Kennedy got shot in the head for trying to do that, so I guess we'll see if it's even possible to negotiate with these people. Hopefully the mood in the US is enough to suggest to the unelected technocrats who run their own little kingdoms within the empire it's a good idea to listen. But that's a grey area that I doubt anyone can predict right now.

That's how you solve these problems. Not because I say so but because that's why we have the institutions and policies that were decades in the making and have been trounced by the neocon crazies and the self serving politicians that have enabled these vandals, such as the Clinton gang. It may be naive to hope for a change this time, it probably is. But the bottom line and everything upon which this debate has been based is that such a change wasn't conceivable under a more of the same, hopelessly compromised and corrupt Clinton administration. Fact. I'd give us a 1 in 10 chance of achieving something better than that, making some progress. Not much of a chance but a better chance than 0%. And you don't get that chance if Clinton is elected instead of "Anybody but Clinton", in this case Trump.

Which is why I'm delighted he won it. And which is why I believe either this presidency or the fallout from a failed presidency could signal the desire for real change. And for that to be on the table at all the American people, or at least some of them, must have realise the need for change. A realisation based on many reasons no doubt, but central to it all was the cry, "Enough of this shit!" Hallelujah.

[Kano]

https://youtu.be/g5xs4vMx-fM

[Xhaka Can’t]

Surely the passages you have quoted are simple to comprehend? I'm not sure how to state it more clearly. Clinton is a war criminal, Trump isn't. Her crimes in Libya are documented and her policy in Syria is more of the same with the added danger of a confrontational approach towards Russia. Insane. There's nothing at all that can be documented related to Trump in terms of war crimes, obviously because he's not even the president yet but this is a fact nonetheless. If he engages in the same shit as Clinton then he'd be a war criminal too. But the fact is, as things stand, he hasn't and he isn't. In moral terms and whether this weighed on the voters' minds or not, whether intentional or not, the Americans did not elect a war criminal and that surely has to be a very good thing? Or put another way, what a statement it would have been had they elected a woman that is guilty of crimes against humanity.

My comment was a personal one. I'm relieved a creature like Clinton hasn't been able to behave in the manner she has behaved and then be rewarded with the presidency. But there's more to it than that. In both the US and Europe the war criminals in charge failed to persuade their citizens to go to war with Iran and to a lesser degree failed to persuade the citizens to support a full scale war against Syria. It at least suggests some of the people paid attention to what has happened in Iraq. Blair is loathed for being a liar and a war criminal. Bush is not as unpopular as Blair but his legacy is tied intimately to the grand failure in Iraq and the lies that led to the loss of so many lives and so many resources. Clinton easily sits in the company of these criminals. She's "more of the same", the establishment in the eyes of a large segment of the American electorate. With these three criminals you get the neoliberals/neocons as part of the deal. That is what has been rejected in the US. The warmongers and their plans for global supremacy, their "full spectrum dominance", their American exceptionalism.

This is all tied to the US domestic economy. First Ron Paul gained traction with the notion that "blood and treasure" should not be thrown at crazy globalist schemes, not just because of the neglect at home and the waste overseas but also because the blowback generated a cycle of increasing violence and increasing loss. Trump's slogan is America First. He's talking about jobs, the rejuvenation of the domestic infrastructure, better relations with adversaries thus implying less conflict. Now whether he follows through on any of this is another matter entirely, but the fact is he's been elected on the strength of these promises so this at least suggests it's what the people want. And if that's true then finally, at last! It has taken 30 years to go from, "Kick their chicken Shi'ite asses!", to a far more sober realisation that global war by proxy and potentially direct confrontation with Russia is probably not a great idea.

There's another important side to this too. The cheerleaders for war, the mainstream media, have been entirely discredited. Their subscriptions are on life support, their advertising revenues in the gutter. They are dying. This is excellent news as for-profit warmongers such as Clinton have a much tougher time pushing their crude propaganda. Iraq started the funeral for the mainstream media. The large number of people who saw through that utter bullshit and took to other venues, such as the Internet, to expose the mainstream laid the ground for an alternative media that will soon surpass the mainstream in terms of audience numbers. It is no coincidence Ron Paul and Donald Trump dominated the modern outlets and got their message through despite the open hostility and brutal lies and propaganda of the mainstream.

So this is where I find encouragement on a moral level. The rejection of the establishment and the warmongers that have driven the agenda for so long and the slow death of their media cheerleaders and the corresponding rise of an alternative media freed from the establishment gatekeepers.

That's about as detailed as I can go without writing a book. I would hope ANYONE who wants peace and prosperity is aligned with that section of American society that has expressed a desire for the same. I'm afraid writing these people off as racists and misogynists is just silly. Sure, it's nationalism but nationalism is only a dirty word because the liberals and their mainstream media worked hard with their slurs against the idea of nation as they pushed their globalist agendas. What we have seen though is everyday people breaking out of the programming, despite the power of the establishment aligned against them, despite the endless propaganda of the mainstream media. A majority now want their country back, a majority want fewer or no wars, a majority has dismissed globalisation and all the injustices it brings. Brexit is progress. Trump is progress. Whenever you turn away from war and theft you have progressed. That doesn't mean you have reached Nirvana but you have to stop shooting yourself in the foot before you can walk anywhere.

My own views on Trump is that, of course, he's no racist, no Hitler, I mean FFS can we all grow up for a minute? But he's also no Republican so he'll struggle against the forces within his own party that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. But, for a change, there are millions of eyes on this president that are focused on policies instead of bullshit like, "first black president", "first woman president" (which is what the establishment play was about this time around btw). If Trump doesn't deliver, millions of people will notice. If Trump doesn't deliver because he is consistently blocked by his own party then people will notice. There's more chance than ever, albeit a slim one, that this guy might just have enough support to get something done...

HENCE THE TERROR OF THE LIBERAL ELITE...

.., hence the tears, the hysterics, the futile marches and protests which are really about their own arrogance and complacency. They are on a precipice, screaming. If things go well they could be pushed over the edge never to return. Probably wishful thinking on my part but a slim chance is better than no chance at all.

Even if Trump fails completely, if he demonstrates he's just another charlatan seeking power on the back of empty promises then we'll soon know just how serious his current supporters are. If they settle for that and go back to business as usual then you win, the status quo will slip back into gear and we likely won't have a chance for progress in another century. But if the people say well that's enough of that, we gave your shitty political systems one last chance and you blew it, well then we move to interesting times that provide the possibility of real change and real progress. And sure, you can't get there without upheaval, and yes that could be a nasty business. But any more nasty than what we have done to Iraq? Libya? Syria? Afghanistan? I doubt it. There must eventually come a time when we cease building our own security on the back of the victims we create elsewhere and instead build it in cooperation with the people we share the planet with. You'll hear snakes hiss their messages that death and mayhem are the only guarantees for future security and prosperity, but we've been down that route and where is our peace? Where is our prosperity? Isn't it true that the status quo has delivered one notable outcome? Great inequality. It has failed, it has been exposed. And about time too.

Which leads to Russia and Syria. What we do there is help get rid of that ISIS shite we created (starting way, way back when the British felt entitled to rule the world), and then we get our arses out of other peoples countries. Full stop. This doesn't mean we hold joint operations with the Russians and invite them over for team (although we were happy to do that with Stalin in WWII so let's stop with crocodile morality), but we can stop bombing Assad's forces so the Syrians can turn their full weight against ISIS. The Russians HAVE to be there to prevent the collapse of a state they have a traditional relationship with, just as we have our rotten relationships with terror states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar (so stop it again with the mock outrage), but they can't afford to be there and they want to be out of there as fast as possible - hence their partial withdrawal at a time when withdrawal made no sense.

ISIS is committing the vast majority of atrocities in Syria (and wherever they happen to be). The Russians, Syrians AND YES, the UK and the US (again, time to grow up) are also committing atrocities too but this is what happens during war. Every war. When civilians get caught in the crossfire the shooting doesn't stop. I think the statistic for combat casualties and civilian casualties in war is 1:15. Horrendous, but now that we've started all these wars in the Middle East (WE as in US, WE started all these wars), whether we are horrified or delighted with the realities of war those realities still exist. So we can all shout at each other, you did this, you did that. Or we can resolve to end the carnage as soon as humanly possible.

The ONLY sane option then is for combatants to reach some sort of agreement where all resources can be focused on destroying what is the significant threat of ISIS and returning some degree of stability to the country. What does that get us? First, the destruction of ISIS, everyone benefits from that (provided Trump isn't some neocon cuckoo). Next a reduction in tensions with Russia, again everyone benefits from that. Whatever else happens, these are two very worthwhile outcomes.

OR, we can sit there while people die daily, calling each other names and making stupid threats that if carried out will provoke global war. The Clinton plan. No, it really is. Go and look at her policy. The insane bitch. No-fly zones that if violated will result in shoot-downs, even if these are Russian aircraft. Do you get that? Shooting at Russian aircraft. And the Russians would then respond, how? By doing as they are ordered? This is the kind of brinksmanship that moves war beyond the control of the rational and into the realm of the inevitable. It's HUGE that Clinton was defeated. It could just have saved all our lives.

After ISIS is destroyed or at least dispersed, then comes the uncertain part and that's where the UN has to show some balls and stop being a puppet of the US for a change. The Trump factor may or may not come into play once again. We just don't know. But anyway, the US and Russia must be held to account by the legal body that is supposed to preside over these things. If neither agree to leave, which they should according to the law (and not some bullshit political interpretation of the law) then the UN has to intervene and stabilise the situation on the ground. Far from ideal but the alternative is allowing Assad the opportunity to enact revenge against his internal enemies. As I understand it, this is precisely why we have a UN. Not to take sides and provide political cover for war crimes (see Iraq) but to respond to humanitarian crises with the full weight and authority of a unified global community. Time for the UN to do its fucking job and if it can't do that job then disband it.

I haven't mentioned the French. Scumbags. Little weasels who have provoked half the shit that's going on in the Middle East. I haven't mentioned China who are always looking to capitalise on the follies of their adversaries. I haven't mentioned Iran, their ambitions need to be contained too. Trump is right on the money here, don't give them huge amounts of cash FFS. This will stabilise their economy and allow them to commit more resources to undermining the region. They should be made to come to the table like anyone else, without the bribes. Crucial to all of this though is assurances from the US that its crackpot plan to sweep through the Middle East overthrowing governments has finally come to an end. If that guarantee is placed on the table then all else is possible. There will be no perfect outcomes. Dictators all over the region will remain in power and will have to be acknowledged. That's the reality of decades of prior interventions by the major powers and those mistakes aren't easily undone. So we hold our noses in the interests of a wider peace. There is no other option.

And then we put an end to all the stupid sanctions that have forced the poor in the target nations into even deeper poverty and driven them right into the arms of the extremists we claim we want to defeat. Those policies were deliberate btw. It's difficult to create a rabid terrorist movement when people are prosperous. Deliberate. That shit has to stop. So that will mean Trump has to develop some sort of working relationship with his intelligence services that right now are pretty much a law unto themselves. Kennedy got shot in the head for trying to do that, so I guess we'll see if it's even possible to negotiate with these people. Hopefully the mood in the US is enough to suggest to the unelected technocrats who run their own little kingdoms within the empire it's a good idea to listen. But that's a grey area that I doubt anyone can predict right now.

That's how you solve these problems. Not because I say so but because that's why we have the institutions and policies that were decades in the making and have been trounced by the neocon crazies and the self serving politicians that have enabled these vandals, such as the Clinton gang. It may be naive to hope for a change this time, it probably is. But the bottom line and everything upon which this debate has been based is that such a change wasn't conceivable under a more of the same, hopelessly compromised and corrupt Clinton administration. Fact. I'd give us a 1 in 10 chance of achieving something better than that, making some progress. Not much of a chance but a better chance than 0%. And you don't get that chance if Clinton is elected instead of "Anybody but Clinton", in this case Trump.

Which is why I'm delighted he won it. And which is why I believe either this presidency or the fallout from a failed presidency could signal the desire for real change. And for that to be on the table at all the American people, or at least some of them, must have realise the need for change. A realisation based on many reasons no doubt, but central to it all was the cry, "Enough of this shit!" Hallelujah.

I miss CK

[adzzzbatch]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37969741

My heart bleeds for him :violin: :rolleyes:

What a cunt.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37969741

My heart bleeds for him :violin: :rolleyes:

What a cunt.

Publicity for his new show that starts this week.

[Power n Glory]

That's a massive post to unpack. I'll address what I can.



Surely the passages you have quoted are simple to comprehend? I'm not sure how to state it more clearly. Clinton is a war criminal, Trump isn't. Her crimes in Libya are documented and her policy in Syria is more of the same with the added danger of a confrontational approach towards Russia. Insane. There's nothing at all that can be documented related to Trump in terms of war crimes, obviously because he's not even the president yet but this is a fact nonetheless. If he engages in the same shit as Clinton then he'd be a war criminal too. But the fact is, as things stand, he hasn't and he isn't. In moral terms and whether this weighed on the voters' minds or not, whether intentional or not, the Americans did not elect a war criminal and that surely has to be a very good thing? Or put another way, what a statement it would have been had they elected a woman that is guilty of crimes against humanity.

We'll agree to disagree on this one. From a moral stand point, there is no sign of redemption for the American people with this vote. How can it when his campaign was built off xenophobia, sexism and racism? It may not bother you much, I don’t actually think he’s that serious about what he’s said, but it’s the voters getting behind him that worry me. We’ve seen and heard from some of the people and groups that back him, so that’s not a sign of progress to me.

Also, he’s pro military, believes in a strong force and although he says he’ll be adopt a more defensive counterpunch approach, we’ve seen how that approach can pan out. The old sledgehammer to an ant approach. See the situation in Gaza. Military action can only be as good as military intelligence, so if fed the wrong info, we’re still going to get the same results. It’s not as if his voters oppose military action anyway, but as you say, Trump has no prior record so we can only judge his action going forward. I doubt we’ll see anything different to what we’ve seen since the 90s.


Even if Trump fails completely, if he demonstrates he's just another charlatan seeking power on the back of empty promises then we'll soon know just how serious his current supporters are. If they settle for that and go back to business as usual then you win, the status quo will slip back into gear and we likely won't have a chance for progress in another century. But if the people say well that's enough of that, we gave your shitty political systems one last chance and you blew it, well then we move to interesting times that provide the possibility of real change and real progress. And sure, you can't get there without upheaval, and yes that could be a nasty business. But any more nasty than what we have done to Iraq? Libya? Syria? Afghanistan? I doubt it. There must eventually come a time when we cease building our own security on the back of the victims we create elsewhere and instead build it in cooperation with the people we share the planet with. You'll hear snakes hiss their messages that death and mayhem are the only guarantees for future security and prosperity, but we've been down that route and where is our peace? Where is our prosperity? Isn't it true that the status quo has delivered one notable outcome? Great inequality. It has failed, it has been exposed. And about time too.

We're on the same page with that one and the point in bold a definitely agree with but see the opposite of that happening with Trumps votes. It's caused more of a fraction and finger pointing instead of bringing people together. Around 4 of 5 years ago, around the time of Occupy Wall Street and people protesting against austerity, against the bank bailouts, it seemed like people were starting to wake up. Even around the Iraq and Afghanistan wars where people were protesting against the government, whether left or right, conservative or liberal, most people started to see that they were duped by their government and by the mainstream media. It started being about rich vs poor, rich getting richer etc. That’s slowly been chipped away and people are now fragmented. It’s groups of poor people pointing the finger at each other whilst looking to the poster child of corporate greed as some sort of hero. Isn’t that backwards?

I have no doubt that if a major attack were to happen on American again, it wouldn’t take much to convince people to go to war again. It’s not looking good.


Which leads to Russia and Syria. What we do there is help get rid of that ISIS shite we created (starting way, way back when the British felt entitled to rule the world), and then we get our arses out of other peoples countries. Full stop. This doesn't mean we hold joint operations with the Russians and invite them over for team (although we were happy to do that with Stalin in WWII so let's stop with crocodile morality), but we can stop bombing Assad's forces so the Syrians can turn their full weight against ISIS. The Russians HAVE to be there to prevent the collapse of a state they have a traditional relationship with, just as we have our rotten relationships with terror states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar (so stop it again with the mock outrage), but they can't afford to be there and they want to be out of there as fast as possible - hence their partial withdrawal at a time when withdrawal made no sense.

Last note, you haven’t really said much about Russia or Assad’s war crime and human rights records. I guess it doesn’t make much of a difference because we can’t really police the world. I really don’t have an answer for how that can be solved. But Trump has gone on record and said Obama should have gone into Syria earlier and attacked Assad with force and he has also said he’d might have chosen to gone in to attack after Assad used chemical weapons. Again, it doesn’t like anything new.

[Letters]

http://newsthump.com/2016/11/14/ketamine-tops-christmas-lists-for-2016/

:lol:

[Power n Glory]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/steve-bannon-who-is-donald-trump-chief-strategist-a7416086.html

This is new. Interesting choice.

[Letters]

And we're back in the room...for now.

[Niall_Quinn]

What the hell!!!!

Do you realise I've been sitting here for the last 24 hours hitting refresh - AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! :censored: :fury:

[Letters]

It's not all about you, you know.
I was *that* close to having to do a full day's work <_<

[Goonermerree]

What the hell!!!!

Do you realise I've been sitting here for the last 24 hours hitting refresh - AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! :censored: :fury:

Someone needs to get a life.:d

[Goonermerree]

And we're back in the room...for now.

What happened?

[Letters]

What happened?

The server died on its arse and when they rebooted it it briefly came back up but then kept powering down.
Last I heard they were doing some diagnostics. They've obviously picked it up for now.

In brief, GW is running on a ZX81 and the 16k RAM Pack fell out. We've put some sticky tape on it. Hope it holds...

[Niall_Quinn]

It's not all about you, you know.
I was *that* close to having to do a full day's work <_<

More opinion with no facts to back it up!

[LDG]

And we're back in the room...for now.

:scarf:

[Goonermerree]

I wish Tim Farron would go and stick his head up his whotsit. Little twerp!

[Niall_Quinn]

I wish Tim Farron would go and stick his head up his whotsit. Little twerp!

I thought he already had. You mean that's how he normally looks?

Tbf though, there's a far higher change of him knowing what we want than us knowing what we want.

[Letters]

More opinion with no facts to back it up!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201603/its-not-all-about-you

:coffee:

Haven't read this tbh but I assume it backs up my assertion.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201603/its-not-all-about-you

:coffee:

Haven't read this tbh but I assume it backs up my assertion.

You mean human beings are innately solipsist and this invariably leads to psychological degradation?

Who knew

[Jofnn]

The server died on its arse and when they rebooted it it briefly came back up but then kept powering down.
Last I heard they were doing some diagnostics. They've obviously picked it up for now.

In brief, GW is running on a ZX81 and the 16k RAM Pack fell out. We've put some sticky tape on it. Hope it holds...

That sort of covers it.

[Letters]

Got an 'AA' new fiver :cool:

It's AA50, seen some of those going on EBay for as much as £8.

:trophy:

[Niall_Quinn]

Got an 'AA' new fiver :cool:

It's AA50, seen some of those going on EBay for as much as £8.

:trophy:

Plus £4 postage.

[GP]

https://twitter.com/JOE_co_uk/status/798601489371439104

[Letters]

https://twitter.com/JOE_co_uk/status/798601489371439104

That would be funnier were it not so alarmingly close to reality

:ilt:

[Niall_Quinn]

That would be funnier were it not so alarmingly close to reality

:ilt:

It's not even in the long distance vicinity of reality. Just because the media says it, doesn't make it true. In fact, as we have seen from their own internal documents, when the media says it it's propaganda bullshit. What's happening now is anyone who suggests we should take a different stance to Russia is automatically labelled a collaborator. No proof required, no facts tolerated, it's back to McCarthy as if that era had never happened, as if we didn't used to laugh and roll our eyes at the events from that period. Now it's expeditiously fashionable again and such nonsense is treated as sanity. Not a shred of proof either Trump or Farage is in collusion with Putin. Not a shred of evidence to suggest Farage is Trump's puppet. All of this rubbish has been scraped up from the bottom of the barrel so Europhiles could terrorise the British electorate and the criminal elements of the Democratic party in the States could try (and fail) to desperately distract from what was found when their rock was lifted.

So why do you say this is "alarmingly close to reality"? On what do you base this judgement?

[Goonermerree]

Farage is getting his feet under the table so he can run for President in 2020.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's not even in the long distance vicinity of reality. Just because the media says it, doesn't make it true. In fact, as we have seen from their own internal documents, when the media says it it's propaganda bullshit. What's happening now is anyone who suggests we should take a different stance to Russia is automatically labelled a collaborator. No proof required, no facts tolerated, it's back to McCarthy as if that era had never happened, as if we didn't used to laugh and roll our eyes at the events from that period. Now it's expeditiously fashionable again and such nonsense is treated as sanity. Not a shred of proof either Trump or Farage is in collusion with Putin. Not a shred of evidence to suggest Farage is Trump's puppet. All of this rubbish has been scraped up from the bottom of the barrel so Europhiles could terrorise the British electorate and the criminal elements of the Democratic party in the States could try (and fail) to desperately distract from what was found when their rock was lifted.

So why do you say this is "alarmingly close to reality"? On what do you base this judgement?

No i just think the burden of proof lies with people who say the relationship should be reset with Russia?....in what way?, and to what advantage? (and no i don't accept to avoid war as a reason because i don't believe there is any prospect of that happening whatever relations between the West and the Russian Federation are like)

[Kano]

No i just think the burden of proof lies with people who say the relationship should be reset with Russia?....in what way?, and to what advantage? (and no i don't accept to avoid war as a reason because i don't believe there is any prospect of that happening whatever relations between the West and the Russian Federation are like)

America's continuing war global machine is enough to point toward the real danger in the world. There is always a new enemy to be found to justify the sustainment of their military budget, manufacturing of weapons and deployment of troops. If drones aren't killing hundreds of innocent people across the world, then there are hundreds of their own troops being killed off. For absolutely no global gain whatsoever, only to sustain their own increasingly unstable financial status.

[Niall_Quinn]

That's a massive post to unpack. I'll address what I can.



We'll agree to disagree on this one. From a moral stand point, there is no sign of redemption for the American people with this vote. How can it when his campaign was built off xenophobia, sexism and racism? It may not bother you much, I don’t actually think he’s that serious about what he’s said, but it’s the voters getting behind him that worry me. We’ve seen and heard from some of the people and groups that back him, so that’s not a sign of progress to me.

Also, he’s pro military, believes in a strong force and although he says he’ll be adopt a more defensive counterpunch approach, we’ve seen how that approach can pan out. The old sledgehammer to an ant approach. See the situation in Gaza. Military action can only be as good as military intelligence, so if fed the wrong info, we’re still going to get the same results. It’s not as if his voters oppose military action anyway, but as you say, Trump has no prior record so we can only judge his action going forward. I doubt we’ll see anything different to what we’ve seen since the 90s.

Yes, we agree to disagree that the campaign was built on racism, sexism and xenophobia. It just wasn't, but whatever. Increasingly it does seem many voters were swayed on the suitability of Clinton to be president, regardless of who she was running against. Obviously we can't interview 60 million people but the post election coverage does seem to have a common strand running through it - trust. Many people didn't trust her and that's a good thing.

Now of course we can listen to the degenerate Obama and his outrageous commentary that showed us precisely what type of person he is behind the smooth talk and the smile. This idea of David Duke endorsing Trump and therefore Trump becoming a white supremacist as a result is very obviously ridiculous. But the left wing media has settled on that as if it has validity. They continue to push this line of the virtuous (themselves of course) and the deplorable (anyone who is not them). Everyone who didn't support them goes into the same pot. This election has done everyone the great favour of revealing the liberal left in all its self-righteous, hypocritical and obscene glory. If Trump and his supporters had behaved like this we'd hear condemnation from the rafters. Instead the liberals give a pass to this casual slander and then seize upon it to build their talking points. We now see the real cause for division in the US is the liberal left. You are either with them or against them and there's no room for negotiation. Morally speaking, they have shown themselves to be repugnant. They may CLAIM to be the champion of equality and justice but their real methods are now laid bare and their post election words and, more importantly, behaviour are every bit as bad as the groups and organisations they despise and attribute to Trump.

Rape Melania? Assassinate Trump? Dear me. These fuckers sound like the KKK.


We're on the same page with that one and the point in bold a definitely agree with but see the opposite of that happening with Trumps votes. It's caused more of a fraction and finger pointing instead of bringing people together. Around 4 of 5 years ago, around the time of Occupy Wall Street and people protesting against austerity, against the bank bailouts, it seemed like people were starting to wake up. Even around the Iraq and Afghanistan wars where people were protesting against the government, whether left or right, conservative or liberal, most people started to see that they were duped by their government and by the mainstream media. It started being about rich vs poor, rich getting richer etc. That’s slowly been chipped away and people are now fragmented. It’s groups of poor people pointing the finger at each other whilst looking to the poster child of corporate greed as some sort of hero. Isn’t that backwards?

I have no doubt that if a major attack were to happen on American again, it wouldn’t take much to convince people to go to war again. It’s not looking good.

I don't think people are nearly as fragmented as the media claims. And I think we'll see that emerge as the fallout from the collapse in media trust develops. Small minorities are claiming to speak for massive majorities and there's no indication they have any authority to do so. In fact their authority has dissolved. Small groups on either side are driving this division, whether it be the politicians with sores on their arses from the amount of time they have sat in comfortable seats, to the laughably intolerant and biased media and through the small groups who will always wind themselves up over the political process.

I really can't see who is "looking to the poster child of corporate greed as some sort of hero"? Trump supporters? They voted what they saw as anti-establishment to the greatest degree possible. This is politics so only scoundrels are admitted. Better to have a scoundrel who can cause a fuss than one who intends to sleep through her whole term in the back seat while Goldman Sachs drives. "Drain the Swamp", not even a Trump slogan originally but one that stuck and resonated. People are demanding action, not more words. Actual policies that are actually enforced and have a real effect on their lives. I suspect Trump will be the most scrutinised president in living memory. If he sits there and does fuck all it will be interesting to see how long people put up with it. Trump marks an act of desperation in many ways. If he's not the change then where are people ever going to find their change? There's nobody left, not anyone who could make it through the election circus anyway. 2020 will be crucial. By that stage either Trump has delivered or the people (all of them) will have another choice to make. Give up and go back to the same old shit and just accept that's the way it has to be, for ever, or finally realise there's nothing in politics for them. We'll all thank Trump if the latter occurs.


Last note, you haven’t really said much about Russia or Assad’s war crime and human rights records. I guess it doesn’t make much of a difference because we can’t really police the world. I really don’t have an answer for how that can be solved. But Trump has gone on record and said Obama should have gone into Syria earlier and attacked Assad with force and he has also said he’d might have chosen to gone in to attack after Assad used chemical weapons. Again, it doesn’t like anything new.

And I won't say much or anything about Assad and Putin's records if it is supposed to be justification for the west's behaviour. You know my stance, get rid of all government because it is inherently immoral and anti-humanitarian. I'm no fan of Assad, Putin or whoever is in charge of the Congo right now. Fuck them all. But in the end it was the US, UK and France who started all this shit. You can go way, way back. Same fuckers with the same policies. The UN has to be transformed into a legitimate body if we want to make progress in any of these conflicts. As it stands the UN is a facilitator for western aggression. Just look at the track record. Weak secretary generals who are always pandering. Politicians and technocrats who are more interested in holding the organisation together rather than using their mandate to establish global security. The UN has failed, failed, failed again so it either should be abolished or forced to commit to its mandate. It comes to the people of the planet to force that change. Since when have we ever had a say on what happens at the UN? Since when have we ever had any sort of influence?

Of course without a real media it's very hard to restrain these international bodies. So that's where we start I think. The mainstream media is struggling for revenues and struggling to remain relevant. Out of the struggle may emerge a legitimate media and we need to encourage that at every opportunity. The modern world turns on consumerism. Where we spend out money is where we have real influence. I (an apparently many other people) stopped consuming the mainstream media a long time ago. But I'd consume it again if it were to every regain a trustworthy status. There's scope here for modern businesses to gain massive commercial advantages by doing the right thing. If people could get organised outside the political process (just ignore that shit) and create mechanisms for supporting law abiding and socially aware organisations whilst withholding support for the abusers then we could see real change. But the politicians and the media will do everything to keep our eyes on them. As long as we are looking at them and engaged with them then nothing can change. And so I go back to the moral underpinnings of a new, non-political movement. A movement by the people, for the people. Directing trillions of dollars a year in a very carefully targeted manner and swamping the donations of the minority to their political mates. This is where change lies. A long and tiring process but one that could eventually lead to the people instructing the UN to do its fucking job.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

America's continuing war global machine is enough to point toward the real danger in the world. There is always a new enemy to be found to justify the sustainment of their military budget, manufacturing of weapons and deployment of troops. If drones aren't killing hundreds of innocent people across the world, then there are hundreds of their own troops being killed off. For absolutely no global gain whatsoever, only to sustain their own increasingly unstable financial status.

Even accepting everything you've said as true, accepting this about America is not the same as necessitating that Russia should get a free pass for doing exactly the same.

[Niall_Quinn]

No i just think the burden of proof lies with people who say the relationship should be reset with Russia?....in what way?, and to what advantage? (and no i don't accept to avoid war as a reason because i don't believe there is any prospect of that happening whatever relations between the West and the Russian Federation are like)

The Iraq Doctrine. Prove a negative or else. If the Dems or the mainstream media have some evidence that Trump is collaborating with Putin on some secretive level, produce it! Simple. Why all the hints and innuendos? What are they based on?

The Dems have been hacked MANY, MANY times. Hardly surprising really given their cavalier approach to security (which is the whole point of the Russia distraction btw). A while back, 2014 I think, might have been 2015, there was a major leak/ hack that compromised many documents (documents, not email). When these documents were leaked to the public they contained meta information that indicated the documents had been processed through software configured for the Russian language. So perhaps Russians handled the documents. Perhaps it was people who wanted it to seem like Russians handled the documents. Nobody knows. Some source within the intelligence services claims the hack was so sophisticated it could only have been the Russians. Think of what a stupid claim that is, especially in light of the almost non-existent security and the capabilities of kids out there who merrily hack into NASA and the US military. But anyway, this is the basis on which the Russian hacking claims are based.

Meanwhile Wikileaks accumulated tens of thousands of LEAKED (not hacked) emails (not documents). And the Dems went right ahead and merged the document hacking saga into this batch of leaks. Then when Trump started talking about the contents of these emails, and aligned to his suggestion that having a war with Russia was probably not a great idea, he became a Russian collaborator.

All of this to take attention away from the fact Clinton ran an illegal server and Abedin handled classified material in such a slipshod manner that the FBI recently stated there's evidence at least FIVE foreign actors gained access to that material.

Basically, "Lock Her UP!"

[Power n Glory]

Even accepting everything you've said as true, accepting this about America is not the same as necessitating that Russia should get a free pass for doing exactly the same.

That's where we agree. Seems to be a blindspot when it comes to Russia.

[Niall_Quinn]

Even accepting everything you've said as true, accepting this about America is not the same as necessitating that Russia should get a free pass for doing exactly the same.

???

Think this through.

The US is aggressively stomping all over the planet. Almost all of Russia's prior sphere of influence now has American boots on the ground. Russia is being encircled. There are missile and anti-missile batteries on its borders. Its national security is now under as great a threat as it was in the 1940s when Hitler smiled and said he was expanding in every direction to liberate victims from their torturous oppressors.

Syria is Poland. Not one more step! The Russians have long standing ties with the Syrians. They have been invited into Syria by the standing government. The goal is to prevent yet another overthrown Middle Eastern government. How is this in any way similar to US aggression?

The alternative for Russia is to sit idly while it is encircled and its influence in the world is pared to nothing. Is that in any way a realistic expectation? What fools do we have in authority who imagine that is a reasonable expectation?

Or look at it another way, in light of the fact Russia operating within its own sphere of influence cause you such concern. How would it be if Russian forces were in Canada and Mexico and Central America and Greenland and (here is the real equivalent) the UK? Operating to overthrow governments. Actual boots on the ground. Hundreds of military bases. Missiles positioned on the border?

Under such circumstances, would it be legitimate for the US to respond in some manner?

It's very instructive that trying to see this from a realistic viewpoint is classed as drinking the Putin KoolAid. You can't even question US imperialism these days without being a traitor or an apologist.

The truth is, you don't have to be a Putin sympathiser to know that the foreign policies of the US are dangerous and entirely unwarranted. And anyone who wants peace rather than to be eventually dragged into a war that comes directly to our doorstep for a change had best speak up.

[Niall_Quinn]

That's where we agree. Seems to be a blindspot when it comes to Russia.

Without a doubt.

[Kano]

Even accepting everything you've said as true, accepting this about America is not the same as necessitating that Russia should get a free pass for doing exactly the same.

I'm not sure there is a single thing in my statement that can be found to be untrue. I mean, do we really have to tot up the death tolls from Vietnam, Korean War, Iraq and Afghan wars and countless other worldwide involvements? Those continuing to add to that right now? So when you say exactly the same, I think you are overestimating here, just a tad like.

[Letters]

It's not even in the long distance vicinity of reality. Just because the media says it, doesn't make it true.
It doesn't make it false either. Obviously not everything the media says is propaganda. That's the sort of nonsense Trumpe comes out with.


No proof required, no facts tolerated

Literally have no idea why you mentioned Russia but funny you say about proof not required and facts not being tolerated because that's exactly what I've been lamenting when it comes to Trump's more rabid supporters


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aIzQB9EC8


So why do you say this is "alarmingly close to reality"? On what do you base this judgement?
Are we even talking about the same thing? I'm talking about Farage cosying up to Trump. Are you saying he isn't? Was the photo of them grinning like idiots in a golden lift Photoshopped? I have no idea why you brought Russia or Putin in to this, I was just referring to the video.

[Power n Glory]

I don't think people are nearly as fragmented as the media claims. And I think we'll see that emerge as the fallout from the collapse in media trust develops.

Mainstream media trust has already gone out the window. Trump wouldn't have won without it. Things were never post Iraq War and the recession. People are fragmented. Trump did not run an inclusive campaign and could have easily won without a lot of the things he's said about certain groups.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm not sure there is a single thing in my statement that can be found to be untrue. I mean, do we really have to tot up the death tolls from Vietnam, Korean War, Iraq and Afghan wars and countless other worldwide involvements? Those continuing to add to that right now? So when you say exactly the same, I think you are overestimating here, just a tad like.

No it is exactly the same, it's saying America has got involved in military adventures to justify a bloated defence budget (an oversimplification but not necessarily untrue either) that this can then be used to justify anything Russia does. It doesn't.

It boils down i'm afraid to the West are the ones who started it? (what that has to do with anything i'm unclear) therefore we have to tolerate Russia land grabbing from it's neighbours and propping up and assisting a brutal dictator in order to keep it's control over the oil in Syria (the exact thing we have correctly lambasting America for doing, but too many people are guilty of failing to apply that sense of outrage to others).

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Mainstream media trust has already gone out the window. Trump wouldn't have won without it. Things were never post Iraq War and the recession. People are fragmented. Trump did not run an inclusive campaign and could have easily won without a lot of the things he's said about certain groups.

I'm not convinced that's true, it's like with Brexit....some people who voted Leave will tell you how much they thought some of the inflammatory posters were beyond the pale. It's because they don't want to admit to themselves that it works, if Trump had made a lot of vague promises without the incendiary rhetoric i don't think he'd have won at all.

And that's another reason why i don't think Bernie Sanders would have won, look at the last time an American candidate for President totally took the high ground (1988 - Michael Dukakis) he got utterly and totally destroyed by the Bush machine.

If Trump said something controversial, and the media panned him for it, than the narrative spikes that this is proof that the media is out of touch and biased, the media would not have been as scathing as Trump if he'd posited himself as a businessman looking to shake up Washington.....it needed the negativity and channelling into the subconscious sense of fear and dislike in order to win.

Don't get me wrong i still think Trump is totally contemptible, but the unpleasantness was essential to his campaign.

[Niall_Quinn]

It doesn't make it false either. Obviously not everything the media says is propaganda. That's the sort of nonsense Trumpe comes out with.



Literally have no idea why you mentioned Russia but funny you say about proof not required and facts not being tolerated because that's exactly what I've been lamenting when it comes to Trump's more rabid supporters


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aIzQB9EC8


Are we even talking about the same thing? I'm talking about Farage cosying up to Trump. Are you saying he isn't? Was the photo of them grinning like idiots in a golden lift Photoshopped? I have no idea why you brought Russia or Putin in to this, I was just referring to the video.

The video implies Putin as Farage's puppeteer and Farage as the little puppet sent to sit on Trump's knee. I explained earlier, providing the facts, how the whole Russia angle is mainstream propaganda and a cover-story and nothing more. Farage "cosying up to Trump" is no different to any other political likeminded figures. Bush and his poodle Blair, for example.

[Power n Glory]

I'm not convinced that's true, it's like with Brexit....some people who voted Leave will tell you how much they thought some of the inflammatory posters were beyond the pale. It's because they don't want to admit to themselves that it works, if Trump had made a lot of vague promises without the incendiary rhetoric i don't think he'd have won at all.

And that's another reason why i don't think Bernie Sanders would have won, look at the last time an American candidate for President totally took the high ground (1988 - Michael Dukakis) he got utterly and totally destroyed by the Bush machine.

If Trump said something controversial, and the media panned him for it, than the narrative spikes that this is proof that the media is out of touch and biased, the media would not have been as scathing as Trump if he'd posited himself as a businessman looking to shake up Washington.....it needed the negativity and channelling into the subconscious sense of fear and dislike in order to win.

Don't get me wrong i still think Trump is totally contemptible, but the unpleasantness was essential to his campaign.

You may have to explain that one again.

I think the mistrust the public have for mainstream media has worked and if anything, the negative publicity helped Trumps campaign, but people don't necessarily trust the narrative.

I think anyone that presented themselves as the different candidate and represented change had a good shot. That's why Clinton was a lost cause.

[Kano]

No it is exactly the same, it's saying America has got involved in military adventures to justify a bloated defence budget (an oversimplification but not necessarily untrue either) that this can then be used to justify anything Russia does. It doesn't.

It boils down i'm afraid to the West are the ones who started it? (what that has to do with anything i'm unclear) therefore we have to tolerate Russia land grabbing from it's neighbours and propping up and assisting a brutal dictator in order to keep it's control over the oil in Syria (the exact thing we have correctly lambasting America for doing, but too many people are guilty of failing to apply that sense of outrage to others).

I'm not sure where this generalisation of 'justifying anything Russia does' has come from. Apart from your own posts of course. We are speaking in simplistic terms on a football forum, this isn't where in depth analysis and discussion can be held. Simple points are put across, back and forth. Maybe that explains why you are talking about Russia being forgiven for anything they do, I'm not sure.

Focusing on military interference is not enough. When you combine the social, economic, political AND military destruction caused implicitly by the US leading their allies, then you have a broader picture of where the immediate danger and harm lies to the world around us. This isn't about handing out free passes to anyone. What people should be concerned about are the aggressive psychological and physical forces that are tipping the West and - because of the globalised world - everyone else into misery. The good news is, that there are signs that by doing so, that grip over society will continue to loosen bit by bit.

[Niall_Quinn]

Mainstream media trust has already gone out the window. Trump wouldn't have won without it. Things were never post Iraq War and the recession. People are fragmented. Trump did not run an inclusive campaign and could have easily won without a lot of the things he's said about certain groups.

Are you saying Trump WOULDN'T have won without the mainstream media?

Have you ever stopped to consider that what Trump campaigned on is what he intends to do, or try to do? He hasn't been inclusive towards illegal immigrants. What's wrong with that, if we consider things from the viewpoint of state and the law? He hasn't been inclusive of immigrants arriving from Muslim nations that can't be properly vetted, what's wrong with that in terms of security considering the number of attacks Muslim fanatics have perpetrated against civilian targets in the west?

Women, blacks, legal immigrants. What policies does he have that exclude these people? If anything, I rated him a little too inclusive of blacks and latinos, it sounded to me like they were in line for special policies and favouritism. Understandable maybe, as these communities have fallen behind under years of Democratic neglect of the inner cities. But the opposite of the accusations of non-inclusiveness nonetheless.

It seems to me that most liberals don't actually know what Trump's policies are. Instead they have listened to far-spun distortions leveraged by the leftist mainstream media. The idea Trump is a racist, a bigot or a misogynist is preposterous. A rich, privileged, brash playboy type surrounded by gold-diggers - sure. But beyond that there's not a shred of proof of any of the slander that has been thrown at him.

Where are all these women who accused him during the campaign, btw? Shouldn't it be a big thing that a man guilty of all these abuses against women is now the president elect? That shit seems to have fallen off the scope. I wonder why? Indeed several of the women have retracted their claims already, and it appears they aren't going to be prosecuted. Well they should be.

Trump is many things, some of them unpleasant. But only fools with an agenda or deep bitterness and resentment of the election result believe the bullshit hype being pushed by the now exposed and discredited mainstream media.

[Niall_Quinn]

No it is exactly the same, it's saying America has got involved in military adventures to justify a bloated defence budget (an oversimplification but not necessarily untrue either) that this can then be used to justify anything Russia does. It doesn't.

It boils down i'm afraid to the West are the ones who started it? (what that has to do with anything i'm unclear) therefore we have to tolerate Russia land grabbing from it's neighbours and propping up and assisting a brutal dictator in order to keep it's control over the oil in Syria (the exact thing we have correctly lambasting America for doing, but too many people are guilty of failing to apply that sense of outrage to others).

You are spinning out of control.

Russia WAS NOT in Syria before the US went in.

Russia WAS NOT in Ukraine before the US went in.

Russia was not anywhere, except behind its own borders, before NATO was transformed from a cold war alliance against the Soviet Union into an expansionist vehicle for US and European interests.

I don't think you understand what the cold war was about, how it held the word back from open conflict and how spheres of influence kept the balance of power precariously level. The US has trampled all over that delicate balance and made the immediate concern one of conflict or the avoidance of conflict with Russia. This is way beyond the moral in and outs and meanderings designed to justify the US aggression and expansionism that is ratcheting up global tensions.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You may have to explain that one again.

I think the mistrust the public have for mainstream media has worked and if anything, the negative publicity helped Trumps campaign, but people don't necessarily trust the narrative.

I think anyone that presented themselves as the different candidate and represented change had a good shot. That's why Clinton was a lost cause.

That's the point, the more vitriolic Trump became the more negatively the mainstream media responded and the more justification Trump has for claiming institutional bias.

It wasn't about making people positive for change, it was about making people frightened of things staying the same.

[Power n Glory]

Are you saying Trump WOULDN'T have won without the mainstream media?

Have you ever stopped to consider that what Trump campaigned on is what he intends to do, or try to do? He hasn't been inclusive towards illegal immigrants. What's wrong with that, if we consider things from the viewpoint of state and the law? He hasn't been inclusive of immigrants arriving from Muslim nations that can't be properly vetted, what's wrong with that in terms of security considering the number of attacks Muslim fanatics have perpetrated against civilian targets in the west?

Women, blacks, legal immigrants. What policies does he have that exclude these people? If anything, I rated him a little too inclusive of blacks and latinos, it sounded to me like they were in line for special policies and favouritism. Understandable maybe, as these communities have fallen behind under years of Democratic neglect of the inner cities. But the opposite of the accusations of non-inclusiveness nonetheless.

It seems to me that most liberals don't actually know what Trump's policies are. Instead they have listened to far-spun distortions leveraged by the leftist mainstream media. The idea Trump is a racist, a bigot or a misogynist is preposterous. A rich, privileged, brash playboy type surrounded by gold-diggers - sure. But beyond that there's not a shred of proof of any of the slander that has been thrown at him.

Where are all these women who accused him during the campaign, btw? Shouldn't it be a big thing that a man guilty of all these abuses against women is now the president elect? That shit seems to have fallen off the scope. I wonder why? Indeed several of the women have retracted their claims already, and it appears they aren't going to be prosecuted. Well they should be.

Trump is many things, some of them unpleasant. But only fools with an agenda or deep bitterness and resentment of the election result believe the bullshit hype being pushed by the now exposed and discredited mainstream media.

No, I'm saying if the public trusted the mainstream media, Trump wouldn't have won. It goes hand in hand with people mistrusting politicians and to the aftermath of 9/11.

Everything else you've posted is irrelevant. The point in bold shows you believe a lot of bullshit as well. Broad assumptions.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You are spinning out of control.

Russia WAS NOT in Syria before the US went in.

Russia WAS NOT in Ukraine before the US went in.

Russia was not anywhere, except behind its own borders, before NATO was transformed from a cold war alliance against the Soviet Union into an expansionist vehicle for US and European interests.

I don't think you understand what the cold war was about, how it held the word back from open conflict and how spheres of influence kept the balance of power precariously level. The US has trampled all over that delicate balance and made the immediate concern one of conflict or the avoidance of conflict with Russia. This is way beyond the moral in and outs and meanderings designed to justify the US aggression and expansionism that is ratcheting up global tensions.

So Russia has never used Gazprom to assert an economic stranglehold over former satellite states

It didn't poison Viktor Yuschenko a candidate for the Ukranian presidency in 2004 because he stood on a platform of wanting closer ties with the West than with Moscow.

It didn't carry out an execution of one of it's former operatives Alexander Litvinenko on British soil?

And Russia/The Soviet Union has been involved in Syria since the 1960s since it supported the coup d'etat that brought Hafez Assad to power.

[Power n Glory]

That's the point, the more vitriolic Trump became the more negatively the mainstream media responded and the more justification Trump has for claiming institutional bias.

It wasn't about making people positive for change, it was about making people frightened of things staying the same.

Do think that was purposely done?

[Letters]

The video implies Putin as Farage's puppeteer and Farage as the little puppet sent to sit on Trump's knee. I explained earlier, providing the facts, how the whole Russia angle is mainstream propaganda and a cover-story and nothing more. Farage "cosying up to Trump" is no different to any other political likeminded figures. Bush and his poodle Blair, for example.

OK. Tbh I didn't notice it was Putin who carried Farage on stage :lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

That's the point, the more vitriolic Trump became the more negatively the mainstream media responded and the more justification Trump has for claiming institutional bias.

It wasn't about making people positive for change, it was about making people frightened of things staying the same.

:bow:

That's the best I have ever seen. You should be a political strategist and Clinton could have done with you over the past year.

[Power n Glory]

So Russia has never used Gazprom to assert an economic stranglehold over former satellite states

It didn't poison Viktor Yuschenko a candidate for the Ukranian presidency in 2004 because he stood on a platform of wanting closer ties with the West than with Moscow.

It didn't carry out an execution of one of it's former operatives Alexander Litvinenko on British soil?

And Russia/The Soviet Union has been involved in Syria since the 1960s since it supported the coup d'etat that brought Hafez Assad to power.

That's the blindspot.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Do think that was purposely done?

Yes, i know there was this narrative that Trump wasn't very bright. And whilst i think he lacks self-control, he's not stupid and the people in his team are far from Stupid.

Steve Bannon is an incredibly unpleasant person, but you won't find many cannier individuals.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

:bow:

That's the best I have ever seen. You should be a political strategist and Clinton could have done with you over the past year.

So Trump made a totally positive case for change?

Remembering of course Making America Great Again is a slogan not a platform

I don't know why Clinton is worth mentioning to be honest, she wasn't well liked and was the embodiment of the establishment which definitely worked against her. I'm still to see evidence that someone else could have won against Trump. As much as i hate to say it, you mention political strategists and Trump will be a long time modelled as a perfect way to run an outsider campaign.

[Power n Glory]

Yes, i know there was this narrative that Trump wasn't very bright. And whilst i think he lacks self-control, he's not stupid and the people in his team are far from Stupid.

Steve Bannon is an incredibly unpleasant person, but you won't find many cannier individuals.

Wouldn't that suggest a media bias for Trump?

[Niall_Quinn]

No, I'm saying if the public trusted the mainstream media, Trump wouldn't have won. It goes hand in hand with people mistrusting politicians and to the aftermath of 9/11.

Everything else you've posted is irrelevant. The point in bold shows you believe a lot of bullshit as well. Broad assumptions.

Fair enough, well that's obviously true.

I don't "believe" anything. I watch events unfold and sift approximations to reality from the propaganda because that's as close as anyone will ever get when looking at things from the outside. So of course I don't buy into the media garbage because it's one of the simpler tasks to see through that stuff. That said, everything I said is relevant as it goes to the credibility of the media and the attention span of a "divided" public as the media spin gets crazier and more apocalyptic. The mainstream media and political parties are laughing stocks now, many more people can see it and that's just the way I like it. I'd say as more people get aboard with the realisation they've been conned for so long, the more united we'll be.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes, i know there was this narrative that Trump wasn't very bright. And whilst i think he lacks self-control, he's not stupid and the people in his team are far from Stupid.

Steve Bannon is an incredibly unpleasant person, but you won't find many cannier individuals.

How do you know this?

[Niall_Quinn]

That's the blindspot.

No, that's just stuff he dragged up to try and support a discredited argument. This is a bit like the Trump and Brexit debates. If you won't go along with one position then you are 100% committed to the opposite position. Once so positioned you can be tarred with all manner of guilt by association.

[Power n Glory]

Fair enough, well that's obviously true.

I don't "believe" anything. I watch events unfold and sift approximations to reality from the propaganda because that's as close as anyone will ever get when looking at things from the outside. So of course I don't buy into the media garbage because it's one of the simpler tasks to see through that stuff. That said, everything I said is relevant as it goes to the credibility of the media and the attention span of a "divided" public as the media spin gets crazier and more apocalyptic. The mainstream media and political parties are laughing stocks now, many more people can see it and that's just the way I like it. I'd say as more people get aboard with the realisation they've been conned for so long, the more united we'll be.

I very much doubt that. Suspicion of the media and politicians has been flipped so people are suspicious of their neighbors.

[Niall_Quinn]

So Russia has never used Gazprom to assert an economic stranglehold over former satellite states

Nowhere have I claimed Russia has never used Gazprom to assert an economic "stranglehold" over former satellite states. What assumption am I supposed to make from the dramatic introduction of this non-evidence? The point we were discussing is the US drive for global dominance. So if I follow along with your reasoning:

Russia used Gazprom to assert an economic stranglehold over former satellite states;
Therefore Russia is operating outside its borders;
Therefore there is an equivalence between the US wars of aggression against the Middle East and Asia and Russian interventions.

Is that about it?


It didn't poison Viktor Yuschenko a candidate for the Ukranian presidency in 2004 because he stood on a platform of wanting closer ties with the West than with Moscow.

And then you reinforce this equivalence by talking about an isolated intelligence operation that could be picked out of a thousand such operations that have been developed by all sides against all sides during and after the Cold War.

What on earth is the point you are trying to make here?


It didn't carry out an execution of one of it's former operatives Alexander Litvinenko on British soil?

And pretty much the same thing again. Political assassination. Something we are rather familiar with here in the west but whatever.


And Russia/The Soviet Union has been involved in Syria since the 1960s since it supported the coup d'etat that brought Hafez Assad to power.

Yes, precisely. Syria is a longstanding component within Russia's sphere of influence. Just as I said.

What you are trying to do is make it appear as if I support Russia, Russia's conduct and Russian aims. Just as the media propagandists are trying to do to Trump. The mere suggestion of ceasefires, collaboration, friendlier relations, these are not viewed as sane developments that might save us all from annihilation, but instead treasonous acts that... do what exactly? That's the bit I haven't been able to figure out. Undermine our pursuit of conflict? Curtail Russian operations inside their own sphere of influence? What is the actual policy of the neoliberals, do you know?

Well I don't support Russia but I do wholeheartedly support the idea of friendly relations with Russia. And the same with Syria and Iran and anywhere else that is prepared to swap trade for conflict. And if that olive branch is abused then fair enough, other policies (preferably sane ones) might need to apply. Such as when Iraq attached the US, no wait... Or Afghanistan attacked the US, no wait... Or Syria attacked the US, no wait... Or Libya attacked the US, no wait... Or Iran attacked the US, no wait...

What I meant to say was when SAUDI ARABIA attacked the US.

[Niall_Quinn]

I very much doubt that. Suspicion of the media and politicians has been flipped so people are suspicious of their neighbors.

Are you suspicious of your neighbour? My relations with my neighbour remain unchanged. Well they are better, if anything, because I apologised for that thing.

[Power n Glory]

Are you suspicious of your neighbour? My relations with my neighbour remain unchanged. Well they are better, if anything, because I apologised for that thing.

I really don't know my neighbors but I'd definitely would be if I lived in a pro UKIP, pro Brexit, pro Trump area.

[Niall_Quinn]

I really don't know my neighbors but I'd definitely would be if I lived in a pro UKIP, pro Brexit, pro Trump area.

A pro UKIP, pro Brexit area? Is that code for working class area?

[Power n Glory]

A pro UKIP, pro Brexit area? Is that code for working class area?

Not all working class areas are pro UKIP or pro Brexit.

[Niall_Quinn]

Not all working class areas are pro UKIP or pro Brexit.

So a pro-Brexit area would be what? A street, town, county where the majority voted to leave? And if you lived in one of those areas you'd be suspicious of your neighbours? Why? Because you'd assume they had some unpleasant reason for voting leave?

[Power n Glory]

So a pro-Brexit area would be what? A street, town, county where the majority voted to leave? And if you lived in one of those areas you'd be suspicious of your neighbours? Why? Because you'd assume they had some unpleasant reason for voting leave?

Yep.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I thought I'd leave you two to it and rejoin somewhere down the line

I think more people in my office voted leave than remain, don't really care what their reasons were anymore than I suppose they care what my reasons were for voting remain.

Most of them when discussing it said they had no idea which way to vote and a couple of them even asked me, I said my point of view was biased and best to make your own mind up.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yep.

It sounds like you don't talk to your neighbours much, you state you don't know your current neighbours. So in a hypothetical situation where you lived in one of these pro-Brexit areas, I guess you'd get your opinion of these people you don't know from the newspapers and TV? You state, "mainstream media trust has already gone out the window", is that true in your case? Because if you don't talk to these people you mistrust but you also don't trust the media, then what are you basing your attitude on? Maybe anecdotes from friends and family?

[Niall_Quinn]

I thought I'd leave you two to it and rejoin somewhere down the line

I think more people in my office voted leave than remain, don't really care what their reasons were anymore than I suppose they care what my reasons were for voting remain.

Most of them when discussing it said they had no idea which way to vote and a couple of them even asked me, I said my point of view was biased and best to make your own mind up.

Maybe they should have read a book rather than indulging in whichever media source confirmed their world view? Wouldn't you say most people vote without really understanding what they are voting for? This doesn't make them stupid, but it does underpin this symbiosis between the media and the electorate. Keep them divided, keep telling them what they want to hear.

It's time we stopped paying attention to the media and politicians now and started talking to each other. We could change the world tomorrow, no trouble whatsoever, just by refusing to acknowledge the authority of the bastards in charge. That's what's so pathetic about the ongoing, staged protests in the States. Firstly, these fools don't even know they are being used. Secondly, they are protesting against something they have already endorsed. It's ridiculous. You'd think on college campuses of all places students would be able to get together and have a meaningful debate, minus the pox of the media and the political harpies. But apparently no.

[Power n Glory]

It sounds like you don't talk to your neighbours much, you state you don't know your current neighbours. So in a hypothetical situation where you lived in one of these pro-Brexit areas, I guess you'd get your opinion of these people you don't know from the newspapers and TV? You state, "mainstream media trust has already gone out the window", is that true in your case? Because if you don't talk to these people you mistrust but you also don't trust the media, then what are you basing your attitude on? Maybe anecdotes from friends and family?

I've recently moved. Local news doesn't often hit the mainstream media when it comes to small incidents. It comes from word of mouth from other people's experience and my own experience.

[Niall_Quinn]

I've recently moved. Local news doesn't often hit the mainstream media when it comes to small incidents. It comes from word of mouth from other people's experience and my own experience.

And you've had personal experience with these pro-Brexit types? Or heard incidents relayed about these types? How many such experiences has it taken to reach your broad conclusion about this homogenised and untrustworthy pro-Brexit group?

Personally I have heard of one single incident of racial abuse since Brexit and directly related to Brexit. A group of thicko "yoofs" in hoodies verbally harassed a Pakistani man. It has led me to believe that hoodie wearing "yoofs" who roam the streets racially abusing people are, a) rare in my neighbourhood and b) cunts. But for sure I know these cunts have always existed. And of course they are going to seize any indication that their hateful ideas are in vogue. But I wonder how many non-hoodied yoofs you have personally spoken to who have stated they want pakis out because whites are superior or more entitled? That's racism. Stating you don't want a flood of immigrants into the country because it depresses the opportunities of natives is not at all racist. And it is this latter point the liberals have pounced on and distorted. And unfortunately many people seem to have fallen for it.

[Power n Glory]

And you've had personal experience with these pro-Brexit types? Or heard incidents relayed about these types? How many such experiences has it taken to reach your broad conclusion about this homogenised and untrustworthy pro-Brexit group?

Personally I have heard of one single incident of racial abuse since Brexit and directly related to Brexit. A group of thicko "yoofs" in hoodies verbally harassed a Pakistani man. It has led me to believe that hoodie wearing "yoofs" who roam the streets racially abusing people are, a) rare in my neighbourhood and b) cunts. But for sure I know these cunts have always existed. And of course they are going to seize any indication that their hateful ideas are in vogue. But I wonder how many non-hoodied yoofs you have personally spoken to who have stated they want pakis out because whites are superior or more entitled? That's racism. Stating you don't want a flood of immigrants into the country because it depresses the opportunities of natives is not at all racist. And it is this latter point the liberals have pounced on and distorted. And unfortunately many people seem to have fallen for it.

As once said on here, not all people who voted Brexit are racist but most racists voted Brexit. On that basis, I tread with caution if I'm unsure of an area. The UK has changed a lot since the 80s and 90s, especially London, so it's not that common, but it happens. I've had incidents in certain areas in the past, friends too, so at a time like this I'm cautious. It's nowhere near as bad or extreme as America and it shouldn't take much of a explanation why I'd be cautious travelling around the deep south with their history.

[Kano]

I thought I'd leave you two to it and rejoin somewhere down the line

I think more people in my office voted leave than remain, don't really care what their reasons were anymore than I suppose they care what my reasons were for voting remain.

Most of them when discussing it said they had no idea which way to vote and a couple of them even asked me, I said my point of view was biased and best to make your own mind up.

Most people tend to go with the common mood or general consensus because it's either the easier thing to do or they don't want to stand out from the crowd, even if a vote is supposed to be a private act. That's partly human nature and why the masses have been so open to manipulation over the span of our existence. Laziness also comes into it because generations have been conditioned to believe only one particular system and method of living is available. So again and again they've put faith in governments that they believed would provide them with the information to make considered decisions. The organisations that present the news are also ingrained into the world psyche as telling 'the truth' rather than institutions that are spinning their own particular narrative for their own gain. But results like Brexit, like Trump and like the emergence of Sanders and Corbyn show the control of social discussions are slowly shifting out of the hands of once trusted institutions.

[adzzzbatch]

When is the MSM going to properly report on the "white helmets"? Also they must've built a hospital for every single person in the Eastern part of Aleppo or they're very quick at building them because one is claimed to be destroyed everyday and/or it's always the last one!

[Niall_Quinn]

When is the MSM going to properly report on the "white helmets"? Also they must've built a hospital for every single person in the Eastern part of Aleppo or they're very quick at building them because one is claimed to be destroyed everyday and/or it's always the last one!

LOL

I don't think most people go into this degree of depth about what's happening in Syria.

EDIT: Did you know Netflix will be doing a propaganda piecedocumentary on them? Might already be done, depends if they have been handed the script yet.

[adzzzbatch]

LOL

I don't think most people go into this degree of depth about what's happening in Syria.

EDIT: Did you know Netflix will be doing a propaganda piecedocumentary on them? Might already be done, depends if they have been handed the script yet.

I heard about that :sick:

I mean you don't even have to go that deep to know that the man that filmed the men "rescuing" the little boy (the one shown sitting in the remarkably clean ambulance) Also filmed them same men hacking the head off a 12 year old in the back of a pickup truck.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Maybe they should have read a book rather than indulging in whichever media source confirmed their world view? Wouldn't you say most people vote without really understanding what they are voting for? This doesn't make them stupid, but it does underpin this symbiosis between the media and the electorate. Keep them divided, keep telling them what they want to hear.

It's time we stopped paying attention to the media and politicians now and started talking to each other. We could change the world tomorrow, no trouble whatsoever, just by refusing to acknowledge the authority of the bastards in charge. That's what's so pathetic about the ongoing, staged protests in the States. Firstly, these fools don't even know they are being used. Secondly, they are protesting against something they have already endorsed. It's ridiculous. You'd think on college campuses of all places students would be able to get together and have a meaningful debate, minus the pox of the media and the political harpies. But apparently no.

Well campuses are falling into the "no platform" habbit, which really tends to defeat the point of education in the first place if you are only prepared to hear/read the point of view you want.

I remember someone talking about the Kennedy assassination, he knew there were question marks over it. But realised if you believed in a conspiracy purely based on watching the Oliver Stone film that would be rather silly. So he decided he would read a few books supporting a conspiracy and a few books debunking it....never actually got round to asking him what if any conclusion he drew from that.

But it's hard to expect people to similarly inform themselves on every single issue, there aren't enough hours in the day. Some people are always going to have a deficit of information over others, that's just a fact.

And in terms of people being spoon fed and believing what they wanted to believe, I would say evidence of that from voters on both sides of the aisle. Similarly there would have been protests if Clinton won just as there are protests when Trump won.

[Goonermerree]

Bloody hell, something has just popped up and told me that my computer has been infected with a virus or trojan agh what do I do?

[Kano]

Finish the porn video first.

[Goonermerree]

Finish the porn video first.

Very funny, I was trying to watch the tennis!

[Kano]

Run it in safe mode, install Malewarebytes, run a full scan and that should be enough unless it's gone much deeper than that.

If you have any specialist firewall like Norton etc, ditch that and use Microsofts free version as that should give enough coverage and then run Malewarebytes every now and then on smaller scans to keep the thing clean.