Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
LasraelLarson

Have you voted? ;)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Doro said:

They mention in there wanting to scrap the electoral college... as if that would help them. Trump got the majority of states. He would still win.

 

Not if they just changed it to the popular vote.  Clinton has over 1 million more votes.

In fact switching to the popular vote might encourage more people to vote.  Right now most states results are known before any votes are cast.  Many people dont see the point in voting as there state will always go the same way and there vote counts for nothing, so a Republican living in New York knows there vote wont do a anything.  Switch this to the popular vote and all of a sudden every vote in every state means something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if popular vote was a thing; Hillary would have been running for president in 2008, not Obama:

FB_IMG_1479067382233-e1479067535243.jpg

 

on popular vote, I'll just say changing the rules of the game "AFTER" it is over, just to get a different outcome... is childish.

the electoral collage exists to prevent places like California (alone) deciding the presidency.  if you remove California, Hillary no longer has the popular vote.

regardless, if the switch is made to popular vote, you can't go back and un-elect Obama in 2008.  nor could you nominate Bernie in 2016 to run against Trump (Bernie would have likely had the Dem popular vote in the primaries as well.)  Changing the rules of the game AFTER it has been played is just dishonest.

if they do chose to do away with electoral colleges in the future, watch as an even greater focus is put on voter ID & legal status as it is likely that at least 3 million votes were cast by non citizen votes, (a large chunk of that in California, not ironically.)

Hillary knows she would have lost to Bernie if popular vote was the mode of contest.  so again, changing the rules post contest, does NOT work.  hindsight is indeed 20/20.  ;)

 

anyway bit of a backtrack, but want to see if vimeo will work here, if not, will just be a link...    not only portions of the left live in an echo chamber.  segments of the right also suffers from it as well:

https://player.vimeo.com/video/191605515

^above^ a Republican #neverTrump-er gets his bias crushed as election night unfolds & losses a bet he probably never should have placed.  pretty funny stuff.

 

EDIT:

hard to find images for this, but it would seem Bernie DID NOT win the popular vote in the democratic primaries...  my bad.

th?id=OIP.M702159c4cb40cb759dc697a3741cc

Edited by LasraelLarson
edit: did Bernie lose the Dem popular vote as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not arguing that the vote should be changed so the Trump looses.  I am saying that going forward it would be a better idea.  

The current system does not work for most people.  If you live in a safe state your vote is worthless if you are voting against the state.  If there are no safe states every vote becomes important.

Also California has a population of around 39 million and is vote 55 electoral collage votes so around 1 electoral collage vote for every 700000 people.  Washington DC has a population of around 700000 and get 3.  The votes in Washington DC are worth more than those in California.  

With the popular vote states become irrelevant and the people become everything.  Suddenly the millions of republican in California know that their vote could do something.

On top of that the electoral collage vote does not have to be given out on the basis of the vote in a state, the Electors could vote for Clinton if they so wanted to, meaning all the votes cast my the people could be worthless.  Now this in not going to happen, but the fact that it could is a farce.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

I am saying that going forward it would be a better idea.  

fair enough.  don't now what process there is for changing away from electorate college, or if there are constitutional protections given that America is a "republic" with representative democracy, but there probably is a way.

regardless, every system can be gamed & for every plus or benefit, there will be detractors or negatives.  and with first past the post votes, that still favors 2 party systems.

whatever the future holds, the past is water under the bridge.  & a new rule-set isn't a guarantee of outcome. a player can adjust strategy to work with new rule-set.  Trump would have had a completely different ground game if popular vote was the rule-set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cossieuk said:

Not if they just changed it to the popular vote.  Clinton has over 1 million more votes.

In fact switching to the popular vote might encourage more people to vote.  Right now most states results are known before any votes are cast.  Many people dont see the point in voting as there state will always go the same way and there vote counts for nothing, so a Republican living in New York knows there vote wont do a anything.  Switch this to the popular vote and all of a sudden every vote in every state means something.

But the point of keeping it at state-level is that different states have different needs. A popular vote is pointless if the majority of people all gather in a handful of states and vote in a party that only benefits those states. After all, there are 15 states that have more than half the population. If the other states have no say in the matter, it ends up with the same issue here where people just don't bother voting.

The only way to get more people voting is to mix up the whole party system. Too many people identify themselves as one particular party, and they do the American thing of living their lives by that. Shit, I can literally look at some of these people and say "there's a liberal" or "there's a conservative". The fact that entire states can just be written off as one or the other (in a nation where multiple parties can run) means that the political ideology system is broken, not necessarily the method of counting votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

fair enough.  don't now what process there is for changing away from electorate college, or if there are constitutional protections given that America is a "republic" with representative democracy, but there probably is a way.

regardless, every system can be gamed & for every plus or benefit, there will be detractors or negatives.  and with first past the post votes, that still favors 2 party systems.

whatever the future holds, the past is water under the bridge.  & a new rule-set isn't a guarantee of outcome. a player can adjust strategy to work with new rule-set.  Trump would have had a completely different ground game if popular vote was the rule-set.

Eh, I'd rather retain the notion of the electoral college vote count (as it is now), but change it so the state votes are distributed in the following manner:

  • One vote for every House district won
  • One vote for winning the most house districts.  Should a tie occur, whoever wins the popular election for the state gets this vote.
  • One vote for winning the popular election for the state
  • If a tie occurs within a district or the overall popular election for the state, then the appropriate representative will cast the vote as they see fit 

There's probably a better way to do that, but there does need to be a way to limit the ability for one heavily populated area from determining state policy - which is why in the state of Washington voting outside of King County is completely pointless because whatever King County (aka Seattle metro area) decides happens because there's just so much population in the county.  How on earth is that remotely fair to Spokane or the Tri Cities?

1 hour ago, Doro said:

The only way to get more people voting is to mix up the whole party system. Too many people identify themselves as one particular party, and they do the American thing of living their lives by that. Shit, I can literally look at some of these people and say "there's a liberal" or "there's a conservative". The fact that entire states can just be written off as one or the other (in a nation where multiple parties can run) means that the political ideology system is broken, not necessarily the method of counting votes.

Mostly because we turned politics into sports...

Which is a very American, yet oddly ironic, thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

fair enough.  don't now what process there is for changing away from electorate college, or if there are constitutional protections given that America is a "republic" with representative democracy, but there probably is a way.

regardless, every system can be gamed & for every plus or benefit, there will be detractors or negatives.  and with first past the post votes, that still favors 2 party systems.

whatever the future holds, the past is water under the bridge.  & a new rule-set isn't a guarantee of outcome. a player can adjust strategy to work with new rule-set.  Trump would have had a completely different ground game if popular vote was the rule-set.

The EC is laid out in the main body of our Constitution. What it basically says is the States get one Electoral Vote per Congressional Seat, which gives every State a minimum of 3 EC Votes and the votes of the EC are reported to Congress. That's the general outline of the EC. The States can elect the EC how they see fit as long as it is a "Republican" system. So they can have the people vote, or they could even directly appoint their EC reps with no vote by the people of the State.

To remove the EC, which is a terrible idea, would require a Constitutional Amendment which would require 2/3 yea in both houses and then 3/4 of the States to ratify.

What's funny is the people wanting a popular vote don't seem to realize that they already have one. No one votes for President or against another State. The popular vote is a State vote to elect an EC member and is only counted against votes in that State. The popular vote of the EC is for the President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what happens when you raise a generation or two believing everyone gets a trophy and no one loses. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People throw two issues into one, and they shouldn't.

1) having an electoral collage at all.

2) given an electoral collage, what is the weight behind the "chunks" (in this case selectpersons). As currently implemented some state's population has multiple times the per-person weight in the presidential election.

You could correct the EC to be proportional to population, registered voters or actual voters. You could actually go floating point. Even without fancy math you could do a lot more even than you do right now.

All advantages cited as the reason for the EC would still apply if it was proportional. Except of course you would get "dominance by the coasts" or "dominance by the cities". Too bad, those are people, too, and I don't think the fix to political haggling is giving uneven weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-11-17 at 1:57 PM, Almagnus1 said:

So does your arrogance.

Be gone, troll.

You wrote: 

On 2016-11-16 at 7:53 PM, Almagnus1 said:

I was fortunate enough to have Dad be the breadwinner for the family as the Air Force provided enough to cover Mom staying home, while Dad's career post AF retirement was successful enough that Mom didn't need to work until we were largely gone from the house.  I realize that not everyone has that luxury, and not all jobs have as good of a work/life balance as my current one does - so my perspective on this is really, really skewered.

You admit you have no experience with what I am describing, and yet you call me arrogant? Most people in North-America do not have the experience you had while growing up and even less nowadays. 

Your style is to attempt to bully and silence people who do not agree with you. That's a weak strategy.

Of course this also included not commenting on the content of my post. Your choice. But that doesn't make me a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the people arguing for some sort of change to the EC also arguing for a change to the Senate? Why or why not? You could make the same points.

The EC is set up to have Presidents that are elected by a broad swath of the country, not just a few heavily populated states. Remember, the US is a constitutionally limited republic with checks and balances and not a democracy. EC is fine the way it is, imo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FundinStrongarm said:

Are the people arguing for some sort of change to the EC also arguing for a change to the Senate? Why or why not? You could make the same points.

The EC is set up to have Presidents that are elected by a broad swath of the country, not just a few heavily populated states. Remember, the US is a constitutionally limited republic with checks and balances and not a democracy. EC is fine the way it is, imo.

I think the real problem with the EC is the winner take all rules for the state, which is not as responsive to the state population, and I think that's where most of the current issues with the EC comes from.

It's also why I'm keen on having the actual House districts (the part of the state that a House seat represents) matter more in the election.

8 hours ago, Tarantula said:

You wrote: 

Oh, you again, and like your prior posts, you're not going to get much of a read because when you start with:

On 11/16/2016 at 11:51 AM, Tarantula said:

I take it you live in Germany. You don't seem to have a clue about how 'this' works in North America. I lived in The Netherlands for 28 years before moving to Canada, where I have lived now for 20 years. Let me enlighten you a little. Darmokk is spot on,

That basically says:

A. Almagnus1 isn't an American (clearly false)

B. Almagnus1 doesn't live in North America (false again).

C. Almagnus1 hasn't spent significant time in North America (false again)

D. Tarantula is a foreigner that lives in Canada, which isn't the USA, so Tarantula knows more about what's going on in North America.

E. Tarantula knows more than Almagnus1 does because Tarantula is older.

It means you're not worth listening to, or wasting time with - because regardless what I'll say, you'll rules lawyer it into being something that shows I'm some sort of clueless misogynistic, racists, bigoted bastard, and you're an angel.  This is the same shit that the trolls on the OF pull.

And I've got better things to do than waste time on people like you.  Welcome to the ignore list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty Lessons from the 20th Century

sharktoofs:

by Timothy Snyder, Housum Professor of History
Yale University

“Americans are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience. Now is a good time to do so. Here are twenty lessons from the twentieth century, adapted to the circumstances of today
.
1. Do not obey in advance. Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. You’ve already done this, haven’t you? Stop. Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom.

2. Defend an institution. Follow the courts or the media, or a court or a newspaper. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you are making them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions don’t protect themselves. They go down like dominoes unless each is defended from the beginning.

3. Recall professional ethics. When the leaders of state set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become much more important. It is hard to break a rule-of-law state without lawyers, and it is hard to have show trials without judges.

4. When listening to politicians, distinguish certain words. Look out for the expansive use of “terrorism” and “extremism.” Be alive to the fatal notions of “exception” and “emergency.” Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.

5. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives. When the terrorist attack comes, remember that all authoritarians at all times either await or plan such events in order to consolidate power. Think of the Reichstag fire. The sudden disaster that requires the end of the balance of power, the end of opposition parties, and so on, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book. Don’t fall for it.

6. Be kind to our language. Avoid pronouncing the phrases everyone else does. Think up your own way of speaking, even if only to convey that thing you think everyone is saying. (Don’t use the internet before bed. Charge your gadgets away from your bedroom, and read.) What to read? Perhaps “The Power of the Powerless” by Václav Havel, 1984 by George Orwell, The Captive Mind by Czesław Milosz, The Rebel by Albert Camus, The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, or Nothing is True and Everything is Possible by Peter Pomerantsev.

7. Stand out. Someone has to. It is easy, in words and deeds, to follow along. It can feel strange to do or say something different. But without that unease, there is no freedom. And the moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.

8. Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Bookmark PropOrNot or other sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes.

10. Practice corporeal politics. Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people. Make new friends and march with them.

11. Make eye contact and small talk. This is not just polite. It is a way to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down unnecessary social barriers, and come to understand whom you should and should not trust. If we enter a culture of denunciation, you will want to know the psychological landscape of your daily life.

12. Take responsibility for the face of the world. Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate. Do not look away and do not get used to them. Remove them yourself and set an example for others to do so.

13. Hinder the one-party state. The parties that took over states were once something else. They exploited a historical moment to make political life impossible for their rivals. Vote in local and state elections while you can.

14. Give regularly to good causes, if you can. Pick a charity and set up autopay. Then you will know that you have made a free choice that is supporting civil society helping others doing something good.

15. Establish a private life. Nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push you around. Scrub your computer of malware. Remember that email is skywriting. Consider using alternative forms of the internet, or simply using it less. Have personal exchanges in person. For the same reason, resolve any legal trouble. 
Authoritarianism works as a blackmail state, looking for the hook on which to hang you. Try not to have too many hooks.

16. Learn from others in other countries. Keep up your friendships abroad, or make new friends abroad. The present difficulties here are an element of a general trend. And no country is going to find a solution by itself. Make sure you and your family have passports.

17. Watch out for the paramilitaries. When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching around with torches and pictures of a Leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-Leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the game is over.

18. Be reflective if you must be armed. If you carry a weapon in public service, God bless you and keep you. But know that evils of the past involved policemen and soldiers finding themselves, one day, doing irregular things. Be ready to say no. (If you do not know what this means, contact the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and ask about training in professional ethics.)

19. Be as courageous as you can. If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die in unfreedom.

20. Be a patriot. The incoming president is not. Set a good example of what America means for the generations to come. They will need it.“

Timothy Snyder
Housum Professor of History
Yale University
Author: "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jedy2 said:

 

2. Defend an institution. Follow the courts or the media, or a court or a newspaper. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you are making them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions don’t protect themselves. They go down like dominoes unless each is defended from the beginning.

What, like the churches and generally being a Christian in this country?  That's been under siege for a long time by the political left.

Quote

3. Recall professional ethics. When the leaders of state set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become much more important. It is hard to break a rule-of-law state without lawyers, and it is hard to have show trials without judges.

So Hillary......

Quote

4. When listening to politicians, distinguish certain words. Look out for the expansive use of “terrorism” and “extremism.” Be alive to the fatal notions of “exception” and “emergency.” Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.

And also political correctness, which censors.

Quote

6. Be kind to our language. Avoid pronouncing the phrases everyone else does. Think up your own way of speaking, even if only to convey that thing you think everyone is saying. (Don’t use the internet before bed. Charge your gadgets away from your bedroom, and read.) What to read? Perhaps “The Power of the Powerless” by Václav Havel, 1984 by George Orwell, The Captive Mind by Czesław Milosz, The Rebel by Albert Camus, The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, or Nothing is True and Everything is Possible by Peter Pomerantsev.

And political correctness is not being kind to the language, it's stifling it into something truly Orwellian.

Quote

8. Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

Like Hillary's a felon?

Quote

11. Make eye contact and small talk. This is not just polite. It is a way to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down unnecessary social barriers, and come to understand whom you should and should not trust. If we enter a culture of denunciation, you will want to know the psychological landscape of your daily life.

You clearly haven't been to the northwest, eh?

Quote

12. Take responsibility for the face of the world. Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate. Do not look away and do not get used to them. Remove them yourself and set an example for others to do so.

So what happens when the Democrats start leaving them and the media assumes it's the Republicans?  That's what one kid was doing in Texas (I think), because they wanted to show the world what Donald Trump was like.

Quote

13. Hinder the one-party state. The parties that took over states were once something else. They exploited a historical moment to make political life impossible for their rivals. Vote in local and state elections while you can.

It could be strongly argued that the Democrats were trying for exactly this.  I mean, why would you basically reject a democratic process and start doing http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/us/politics/obama-may-jump-into-fray-as-democrats-counter-trump.html if your goal isn't to stamp out the Republican party?

The Democrats also self destructed by following the political correctness nonsense, and the aftermath of the election has shown America just how idiot that far left philosophy really is.  The Democrats either need to adjust course and move back into the center, or we need to start supporting the LIbertarians in their place.  Otherwise we're going to get here by no fault of the Republicans.

This is also why Trump got 306 electoral college votes compared to Hillary's 232.  That's not a victory, that's an asskicking.  Going by the county map at http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president , that's also a very, very red country.  This further proves how badly the Democrats have failed at staying in touch with America.

Either way, this is going to be a problem until we stop trying to play sports with politics because when one side "wins", everyone loses.

Quote

20. Be a patriot. The incoming president is not. Set a good example of what America means for the generations to come. They will need it.“

Hillary definitely is not, because that email server definitely was "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." because everybody in the world had access to it. By the way, that's also known as treason in the USA.

That leads to the problem with that server... It was not only able to provide classified intelligence to the world, so everyone from the terrorist organizations to Russia to our allies had access to sensitive information, yet Wikileaks was able to dump that information out to the web.  It's no small wonder that Russia is denying any involvement with the server, because they don't want to tip their hand about how much about the US they know because of Hillary's idiocy and that server.  Anybody who's NOT a Clinton would have probably been thrown in jail, probably executed, for that breach of intelligence.

Quote

Timothy Snyder
Housum Professor of History
Yale University
Author: "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning”

Ok, that makes sense, another academic butthurt that Hillary didn't become president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Like Hillary's a felon?

Has she ever been found guilty of a crime? 

Believing she is guilty is not the same as her being guilty.

 

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Hillary definitely is not, because that email server definitely was "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." because everybody in the world had access to it. By the way, that's also known as treason in the USA.

But asking a foreign power to hack said those emails and interfere with an election process is very patriotic .  That is also treason 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cossieuk said:

Has she ever been found guilty of a crime? 

Believing she is guilty is not the same as her being guilty.

So noticing this pattern with Hillary that she's in the middle of every single scandal that plagued Bill Clinton, and knowing that she had an email server that is in direct violation of many regulations around Secret and Top Secret material which would have utterly destroyed other people counts for what then.... nothing?

3 hours ago, cossieuk said:

But asking a foreign power to hack said those emails and interfere with an election process is very patriotic .  That is also treason 

Not necessarily, it's merely the return of evidence that an bureau of investigation should have found to begin with.

Additionally, Russia is going to be coy about it because they do not want the US to know the extent of the sensitive information that Hillary's email server leaked because that's advantageous to Russia.  That and I think Putin's a bit of a troll >.>

Hypothetically speaking, if the UK had a full copy of all the emails on that server (including the deleted ones), what gain would the UK have for revealing that they had any information at all from that server?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2016 at 6:10 PM, Spiteful said:

That's what happens when you raise a generation or two believing everyone gets a trophy and no one loses. 

these have been dispatched to blue counties around the country:

CxpbroZUUAEaVFb_zpsziltbu61.jpg

at least until the bubble counties are in place & operational:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

So noticing this pattern with Hillary that she's in the middle of every single scandal that plagued Bill Clinton, and knowing that she had an email server that is in direct violation of many regulations around Secret and Top Secret material which would have utterly destroyed other people counts for what then.... nothing?

 

You do understand how the law actually works.  Innocent until proven guilty.  It is really that simple.  You want her to be guilty but she is not.  The FBI investigated the emails and did not bring her up on any charges.  They even reopened the case just over a week from the election, possibly affecting the result, and again brought no charges.

9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Not necessarily, it's merely the return of evidence that an bureau of investigation should have found to begin with.

Additionally, Russia is going to be coy about it because they do not want the US to know the extent of the sensitive information that Hillary's email server leaked because that's advantageous to Russia.  That and I think Putin's a bit of a troll >.>

Hypothetically speaking, if the UK had a full copy of all the emails on that server (including the deleted ones), what gain would the UK have for revealing that they had any information at all from that server?

Asking another government to hack someone in your own government, who is standing against you for President, is treason.

If the UK had hacked some servers and had information that could affect the outcome of the election, releasing it would be dangerous as no government should try to interfere with the democratic elections of another country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

 

Ok, that makes sense, another academic butthurt that Hillary didn't become president.

I envy you. To have understood the above, out of an important analysis of a dangerous, world-wide trend, is to fulfill at least one part of my boyhood dream;

 

"Etre une heure, rien qu'une heure durant
Beau, beau, beau et con à la fois"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2016 at 4:40 AM, Jedy2 said:

Many would disagree. Especially in Quebec. 

you have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about, but i think you mean Montreal, not Quebec.

whilst Montreal does have a multicultural population that is rivaled only by Toronto, rural Quebec is VERY white.  & i say this with complete confidence; rural Quebec & segments of Montreal itself are some of the MOST racist places in all of Canada.

Quebec was the only place in Canada where a ban of the Hijab (not the more oppressive & identity hidden, Burka) garnered any serious steam.

you literally have no clue.

for the record, i think the Hijab is perfectly acceptable...  even face veils, as long as they are removed for identity purposes, ex: Bank lines, voting or any circumstance where identification is required.

3 hours ago, Jedy2 said:

...an important analysis of a dangerous, world-wide trend...

 

"Etre une heure, rien qu'une heure durant
Beau, beau, beau et con à la fois"

and again, your understanding of the trend, is profoundly lacking.

i am politically centrist, not alt right.  & i know many on the left who supported Trump.  the reason for the shift is the complete rejection of Marxist ideological thugs, who are no better than the Fascists they purport to oppose.

& yes this isn't a shift just in the US, it is happening all over the globe...  just look at the Philippines. 

the EU is also going to fall in the next few years, as a majority of those nations under that umbrella are shifting politically to reject Globalist initiatives.  in 2017, 2 perhaps even 3 countries will follow Britains lead.  many more in the years following.  the EU is done.

but please continue with clutching pearls in a moral panic, the fainting couch industry will be booming.  because the tone deaf nature of mislabeling pretty much everything is only aiding the shift.  people are fed up.

Tyranny isn't exclusive possession of the right, but can occur on all spectrum of the political compass.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

you have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about, but i think you mean Montreal, not Quebec.

I think he's referring to the whole "speaking English" part, what with Quebec being so full of cheese-eating surrender monkeys (the French).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

 

you literally have no clue....

..

2 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

 

and again, your understanding of the trend, is profoundly lacking.

but please continue with clutching pearls in a moral panic, the fainting couch industry will be booming.  because the tone deaf nature of mislabeling pretty much everything is only aiding the shift.  people are fed up.

Tyranny isn't exclusive possession of the right, but can occur on all spectrum of the political compass.

Yes, I must say I find it difficult to understand what you are talking about. Perhaps, as Doro said, there is some misunderstanding. Do try to use capital letters. Their lack is not only impolite, but makes communication even more difficult.

If you're really interested in my explanation of the relevance of Snyder's views to Poland, I am willing to elaborate. I find hilarious treating someone who had rifle bayonet stuck in one's stomach during martial law for persuasion sake as couch potato left-wing moaner.  

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doro said:

I think he's referring to the whole "speaking English" part, what with Quebec being so full of cheese-eating surrender monkeys (the French).

ah, well there he would be correct.  outside Montreal, if you don't speak French, you will get looks of subtle disdain, to outright contempt.  English can be spoken in Montreal, but even there has seen subtle shifts in the past decade or so.

1 hour ago, Jedy2 said:

..

Yes, I must say I find it difficult to understand what you are talking about. Perhaps, as Doro said, there is some misunderstanding. Do try to use capital letters. Their lack is not only impolite, but makes communication even more difficult.

If you're really interested in my explanation of the relevance of Snyder's views to Poland, I am willing to elaborate. I find hilarious treating someone who had rifle bayonet stuck in one's stomach during martial law for persuasion sake as couch potato left-wing moaner.  

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes. 

Snyder needs to get out of his echo chamber, before he chokes on his own propaganda.  his application of the past to current circumstances is chronically tone deaf.

what is occurring in Poland currently,  is very different than what happened during the invasion of Poland in WW2.

and for clarity, "fainting couch" is a Victorian era reference, and has nothing to do with laziness, but rather rigid confines to a world moral view (tight corset & the resulting fainting due to lack of oxygen) limiting exposure to other viewpoints, offense culture, morale shaming and so on.  likewise to the pearl clutching, more outward moral shaming, feigning disgust, shock or horror all with the intention to sensor opposing views.

 

anyway, we all need to beware of the rising of the Fourth Riech, check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×