Technically I said I would post pictures of bombed out Syrian hospitals for them to jerk off to.
Then I asked if I could post pictures of dead Syrian children to show those posters the "terrorists" Russia has been focused on killing.
Then I asked if I could post pictures of dead Syrian children to show those posters the "terrorists" Russia has been focused on killing.
By Phoenix RISING Go To PostLow Democratic turnout is #1She's gonna come very close if not outright match Obama's vote total form 2012, so even this doesn't hold to much scrutiny. There's still millions of votes left to be counted.
To be fair, Democrats got more votes in all three branches of government than Republicans did so the polls there are accurate.
Geography is the biggest problem the party has :(
Geography is the biggest problem the party has :(
By IWMTB19 Go To PostFillon is likely to win France's center-right primary, meaning that Le Pen has a good chance of becoming prime minister because Fillon's platform is wildly unpopular. Fillon wants huge cuts to France's welfare state.
The candidates other than Fillon and Le Pen have next to no chance so this is going to be a pretty bad election. But at least Sarkozy lost on his platform of hating Muslims.
Appreciate it IWMTB, good to see people pay attention, if ever people are interested in the next few months until the election, I can clarify some things.
We don't elect the prime minister. It's the presidential election.
Le Pen has a chance, she should be leading after the first round, but everyone expects her to lose 30/70 more or less. Her father lost 18/82 in 2002 (in actual percentages of the vote, not probability). They're progressing (meaning, everyone else is regressing, people don't trust politicians), but they're not at that stage yet. Fillon is the strong favorite this very moment. To be honest, there's a lot we don't know, how many leftist candidates will be there, who, etc.
Fillon's platform is pretty much Sarkozy's platform. Fillon was Sarkozy's prime minister for five years. Fillon is no less of a racist. For instance, regarding colonization, a couple months ago, he came out saying that France was "not guilty of sharing its culture with the people of North America, Asia and Africa".
The truth is, there isn't much that separates Fillon from Le Pen. Fillon is very hostile to immigrants too. The only difference is regarding the EU.
But voters’ “grades” for the way Trump conducted himself during the campaign are the lowest for any victorious candidate in 28 years. Just 30% of voters give Trump an A or B, 19% grade him at C, 15% D, while about a third (35%) give Trump a failing grade. Four years ago, most voters (57%) gave Obama an A or B, and after his 2008 election, 75% gave him an A or B.http://www.people-press.org/2016/11/21/low-marks-for-major-players-in-2016-election-including-the-winner/
For the first time in Pew Research Center post-election surveys, voters give the losing candidate higher grades than the winner. About four-in-ten (43%) give Clinton an A or B, which is comparable to the share giving Mitt Romney top letter grades in 2012 (44%) and 13 percentage points higher than Trump’s (30%).
So, majority of voters gave Trump a failing grade for how he ran his campaign, while a majority of voters gave Clinton a passing grade *facepalm*
Fillon is definitely a racist, but Sarkozy just seemed more focused on promoting anti-Muslim bigotry.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostFillon is definitely a racist, but Sarkozy just seemed more focused on promoting anti-Muslim bigotry.That's fair. He lost because of electability: right-wing voters know that there are many scandals surrounding Sarkozy: his 2007 presidential run was illegally financed, etc. Fillon is the same substance with a different branding. Fillon's big thing is indeed a mix of Thatcherism with an American cultural Right touch (anti gay etc). Which is what we could have expected from Sarkozy.
FWIW, here's what a big right-wing newspaper published last week:
The guy is an old-school right-winger, close to royalists. I'm sure you can translate it. That's the mindset of a fair share of the right-wing electorate these days.
The guy is an old-school right-winger, close to royalists. I'm sure you can translate it. That's the mindset of a fair share of the right-wing electorate these days.
By reilo Go To Posthttp://www.people-press.org/2016/11/21/low-marks-for-major-players-in-2016-election-including-the-winner/
So, majority of voters gave Trump a failing grade for how he ran his campaign, while a majority of voters gave Clinton a passing grade *facepalm*
Proving once again that it was never about competence
This kleptocracy is pretty neat!
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/
Yup yup. Let's keep this narrative going. EC wasn't built to give rural states advantages, it was built to stop fascists and unfit men from ascending to the presidency.
Yup yup. Let's keep this narrative going. EC wasn't built to give rural states advantages, it was built to stop fascists and unfit men from ascending to the presidency.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To Posthttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/
Yup yup. Let's keep this narrative going. EC wasn't built to give rural states advantages, it was built to stop fascists and unfit men from ascending to the presidency.
You're going to say I'm nitpicking, but the EC was built at a time when the right to vote was given to 35 000 people, to the exclusion of all others, women, slaves, poor people, etc. And a big priority of the founders was to leave power to States rather than the State. They had Shays' rebellion in mind. The EC was built so that democracy wouldn't happen. Madison thought a democracy was the way for demagogues to seize power, flatterring the lowest impulses of poor people who were not enlightened (while the elite was smarter). They were more aristocratic than people realize. And indeed, it's a seductive narrative for some today, but...
I feel you're contradicting yourself a bit. On one hand you say your favorite narrative is:
"democracy elected Clinton, more votes"
And now you give credit to
"the electoral college which would work if we gave it even more of its antidemocratic substance"
I think your better argument was the first.
The geography thing some Republicans do where they have a map of the U.S. and show all the counties that voted Republican and say "see, this is a Republican nation because liberals live close together!" is very strange.
I mean, there's a fuckton of barely inhabitable land in Alaska where only Native Americans live and those counties go overwhelmingly for Democrats but I don't think that means anything...
What I'm saying is that I should do this weird geography argument for Alaska.
I mean, there's a fuckton of barely inhabitable land in Alaska where only Native Americans live and those counties go overwhelmingly for Democrats but I don't think that means anything...
What I'm saying is that I should do this weird geography argument for Alaska.
By Gabyskra Go To PostYou're going to say I'm nitpicking, but the EC was built at a time when the right to vote was given to 35 000 people, to the exclusion of all others, women, slaves, poor people, etc. And a big priority of the founders was to leave power to States rather than the State. They had Shays' rebellion in mind. The EC was built so that democracy wouldn't happen. Madison thought a democracy was the way for demagogues to seize power, flatterring the lowest impulses of poor people who were not enlightened (while the elite was smarter). They were more aristocratic than people realize. And indeed, it's a seductive narrative for some today, but…
I feel you're contradicting yourself a bit. On one hand you say your favorite narrative is:
"democracy elected Clinton, more votes"
And now you give credit to
"the electoral college which would work if we gave it even more of its antidemocratic substance"
I think your better argument was the first.
My point isn't what is or isn't right. We can have reasonable disagreements about the EC. My point is that there's a messaging opportunity to invoke the founding fathers + the popular vote to suggest that Trump didn't legitimately win.
"Trump didn't win he lost the popular vote massively"
"But the EC"
"The EC was created as a check against an unfit and dangerous person becoming President. They clearly failed in their responsibility here. It wasn't made to stack the deck in the favor of red states with less people".
It's a messaging thing and it keeps them playing defense if we're unified and consistent with it.
It's our version of "But Hillary". We derail every conversation with it until everyone knows that there's a possibility that he SHOULDN'T be President.
I'm kind of surprised that there have been no articles about what Trump's election means for Taiwan.
They kind of have avoided being conquered by China just because its been in our strategic interest, but now with a president that doesn't care about strategic interests...
The people of China are pretty obsessed with Taiwan.
Not to mention that Trump is heavily indebted to Chinese banks and Trump could use giving up Taiwan as leverage for forgiving those debts.
They kind of have avoided being conquered by China just because its been in our strategic interest, but now with a president that doesn't care about strategic interests...
The people of China are pretty obsessed with Taiwan.
Not to mention that Trump is heavily indebted to Chinese banks and Trump could use giving up Taiwan as leverage for forgiving those debts.
Hmm, Turkey passed a bill legalizing child rape as long as you marry the girl you raped.
Things are going alright in this world now let me get some heroin to mainline.
Things are going alright in this world now let me get some heroin to mainline.
By Red Blaster Go To Postlol dude, you told someone you'd post pictures of dead syrian kids so they could jerk off to them
By reilo Go To PostWhoops
By reilo Go To PostFucking hell... You guys fucked up
By reilo Go To PostSo even if we mount a resistance, they can just shut it down and try to make it a one party system .
Kobach was always going to go for the Voting rights act. Black and Brown America exercising their franchise only hurts the GOP....it's super fucked up.
Trump voters are so fucking stupid. When they realize next year they are just as broke if not worse they will be upset. The racist ones don't care about anything but hating others. The true ones that honestly care about the economy will be looking for answers and another solution. That is where the Dems have to come in with a actual message and a 50 state campaign that will offer sanity for their pocketbooks.
http://mobile.eurweb.com/2016/11/white-supremacists-create-fake-black-person-twitter-troll-accounts/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/alt-right-fake-black-twitter-accounts-hate-speech-ban
Just keep these links handy the next time you engage with a "black" trump supporter.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/alt-right-fake-black-twitter-accounts-hate-speech-ban
Just keep these links handy the next time you engage with a "black" trump supporter.
In the past week, Obama alumni have planned gatherings at Glascott’s Saloon in Chicago (an old campaign haunt) and The Winslow in New York. In Washington, they’re meeting in hotel lobbies, 14th Street bars, nonprofits’ conference rooms and living rooms, plotting the resistance over beer and hummus.http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-loyalists-trump-resistance-231642?cmpid=sf
One attendee called the meetings “Obama Anonymous,” and while they largely started as impromptu commiseration, they’ve shifted to mobilization. It’s an early sign that Obama can continue to command a formidable movement and potentially launch a serious defense of his legacy as a private citizen.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To Posthttp://mobile.eurweb.com/2016/11/white-supremacists-create-fake-black-person-twitter-troll-accounts/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/alt-right-fake-black-twitter-accounts-hate-speech-ban
Just keep these links handy the next time you engage with a "black" trump supporter.
I been knowing this shit.
By reilo Go To Posthttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-loyalists-trump-resistance-231642?cmpid=sf
I read that. Sent that around. We're in for the fight of our lives and I'm not interested in folks that don't act.
they should make the cops work for free.
you wanted him, you got him. rest of NY didn't want that clown
you wanted him, you got him. rest of NY didn't want that clown
By DY_nasty Go To PostIts crazy hearing Tulsi Gabbard's name being floated around.
I kinda like her a lot.
More or less than Gabbard likes every anti-Muslim dictator in the world?
By IWMTB19 Go To PostMore or less than Gabbard likes every anti-Muslim dictator in the world?I figured that had to be why Trump was considering her. Reminded me of that bizarre Hindu fundraiser Trump had a couple months back.
In retrospect, it seems obvious that Trump just did that so that he could get better business deals in India.
But it was still hilarious.
But it was still hilarious.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostMore or less than Gabbard likes every anti-Muslim dictator in the world?not being fans of certain countries doesn't make you anti-muslim
By IWMTB19 Go To PostBut being fans of Sisi and Assad and Modi (though he's not a dictator) might.She's a fan of Assad?
Okay. Educate me.
I mean... When you write an article like this and never mention "Assad has intentionally murdered 100k civilians and his plans to end the war are mass murder of rebelling civilian population"...
https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/theres-an-old-saying-that-the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions-c7133a72e6ab#.yi4rnc47a
I mean, it's something you need to mention if you want to be honest with people and not come off as a tactic supporter. It's like in the 1950s saying that the U.S. should be nice to Russia and not bringing up the Holodomor... It raises a few questions.
Today, Gabbard talked a lot about how we shouldn't be in Syria and didn't mention anything else about Syria... Three days after Assad and Putin had destroyed the last remaining hospitals in East Aleppo and most of the food supplies as they planned to starve the children of the region to death until the populace surrendered.
... You should probably bring up warcrimes instead of sweeping them under the rug if you want to actually come off as someone who doesn't support Assad.
https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/theres-an-old-saying-that-the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions-c7133a72e6ab#.yi4rnc47a
I mean, it's something you need to mention if you want to be honest with people and not come off as a tactic supporter. It's like in the 1950s saying that the U.S. should be nice to Russia and not bringing up the Holodomor... It raises a few questions.
Today, Gabbard talked a lot about how we shouldn't be in Syria and didn't mention anything else about Syria... Three days after Assad and Putin had destroyed the last remaining hospitals in East Aleppo and most of the food supplies as they planned to starve the children of the region to death until the populace surrendered.
... You should probably bring up warcrimes instead of sweeping them under the rug if you want to actually come off as someone who doesn't support Assad.
As far as I can tell, this is Gabbard's only tweet about Putin's mass murdering air campaign in Syria.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostI mean… When you write an article like this and never mention "Assad has intentionally murdered 100k civilians and his plans to end the war are mass murder of rebelling civilian population"…There's a pretty big gap between not tagging one of the most infamous people in the world with the implicit title of 'mass murderer of his own people' and being a tacit supporter - especially in the tone of that article.
https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/theres-an-old-saying-that-the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions-c7133a72e6ab#.yi4rnc47a
I mean, it's something you need to mention if you want to be honest with people and not come off as a tactic supporter. It's like in the 1950s saying that the U.S. should be nice to Russia and not bringing up the Holodomor… It raises a few questions.
And she's spot on too with the whole 'the humanitarian cause justifies war' when there are clear, recent examples of it making matters worse. Syria especially would be made immediately worse by any escalation from the US. She also cites the ridiculousness of Clinton's proposed no-fly zone...
I don't see 'fan' anywhere in this, dude.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostAs far as I can tell, this is Gabbard's only tweet about Putin's mass murdering air campaign in Syria.....okay? I'm still not seeing how this goes back to your initial point. Definitely doesn't sound pro-assad...
By IWMTB19 Go To PostToday, Gabbard talked a lot about how we shouldn't be in Syria and didn't mention anything else about Syria… Three days after Assad and Putin had destroyed the last remaining hospitals in East Aleppo and most of the food supplies as they planned to starve the children of the region to death until the populace surrendered.Who doesn't know about the war crimes in Syria? What's the point of laying out in detail what everyone knows each time you speak on the topic? Its not like she's Gary Johnson.
… You should probably bring up warcrimes instead of sweeping them under the rug if you want to actually come off as someone who doesn't support Assad.
The thing is, we can't really do anything about it. I understand you feel strongly about it but that's a situation that'll only get worse at this point. There was a time when intervention would've made sense, could've been practical even - but that's long since passed.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostThere was another tweet!Worse for what? She wanted direct action at one point, it didn't happen, Russia (in very, very simple terms) did what Obama wouldn't (and I don't 100% agree with either approach but that's a different dialogue), then she says that its a lost cause at this point - which is not a crazy person's answer.
Gabbard's second tweet was much worse actually.
edit: and i still don't get the anti-muslim thing you referred to either. or the pro-assad stance
.... Russia's endgame is killing 200k people.
... I agree with... almost none of their approach.
It's just very odd when Gabbard defends war criminals that kill Muslims and then becomes hawkish when it comes to Pakistan.
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/us-lawmaker-tulsi-gabbard-slams-pakistan-for-supporting-terror-outfits-3069953/
And Sisi is a dictator who closed 27k mosques and killed hundreds of children that he thought were members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
When you put these things together, I don't know... You kind of seem to get the profile of a Hindu nationalist.
... I agree with... almost none of their approach.
It's just very odd when Gabbard defends war criminals that kill Muslims and then becomes hawkish when it comes to Pakistan.
“That’s why I’ve continued working in Congress to cut back US assistance for Pakistan and increase pressure on Pakistan to stop this violence. In the past, the US government took steps to increase pressure on Pakistan, and it’s time to revisit that approach,” Gabbard, a two-term Congresswoman from Hawaii, said in a statement.
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/us-lawmaker-tulsi-gabbard-slams-pakistan-for-supporting-terror-outfits-3069953/
And Sisi is a dictator who closed 27k mosques and killed hundreds of children that he thought were members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
When you put these things together, I don't know... You kind of seem to get the profile of a Hindu nationalist.
By IWMTB19 Go To Post…. Russia's endgame is killing 200k people.Russia's endgame is keeping Assad in power. They're doing a great job.
… I agree with… almost none of their approach.
It's just very odd when Gabbard defends war criminals that kill Muslims and then becomes hawkish when it comes to Pakistan.
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/us-lawmaker-tulsi-gabbard-slams-pakistan-for-supporting-terror-outfits-3069953/
And Sisi is a dictator who closed 27k mosques and killed hundreds of children that he thought were members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
When you put these things together, I don't know… You kind of seem to get the profile of a Hindu nationalist.
She isn't 'defending' anyone. Another intervention war in Syria makes what better? That's not a solution. That's what she says in that article you linked. Its not a wild opinion at all. You keep saying 'defending war criminals' when that's not at all what she's doing or saying. You may as well say that anyone who didn't push to mobilize forces against Boko Haram is defending terrorism. Its really, really weak and I'm starting to wonder if there's some other gripe you have against her... because what you're posting is flimsy at best and generally all over the place.
Pro-assad? Don't see it.
Anti-muslim? ....still waiting.
And Pakistan? ISI is on record funding and facilitating all kinds of shit lol. They're responsible for all kinds of fukkery in Afghanistan. Fuck them lol
Yes, Pakistan is bad!
And Egypt is terrible too!
But Gabbard is friendly towards Egypt (whose regime kills Muslims) and hostile to Pakistan (whose regime kills Hindus).
For whatever reason, I have reasons to not trust someone who really likes Modi and shouts "RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM."
And Egypt is terrible too!
But Gabbard is friendly towards Egypt (whose regime kills Muslims) and hostile to Pakistan (whose regime kills Hindus).
For whatever reason, I have reasons to not trust someone who really likes Modi and shouts "RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM."