It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionGood luck, America :)(1039 posts) (1039 posts) 
(1039 posts) 
Pages:
1
10
20
28
29
30
31
32
40
50
60
70
This is my favourite topic
Posted November 09, 2016
Watcha gonna do when Trumpamania runs wild on you?!
Posted November 09, 2016
avatar
sanscript: What's wrong with the words "new world order" and youtube?
avatar
Telika: They are new to you ? When a neonazi militant (actively supporting the neonazi formations in his country) who foams post after post after posts about jews controllong the world, about his fantasies of beating up homosexuals (and his ex-gf), about subhuman primitive foreigner "cannibals" creeping in his country, who drools with admiration at each military dictatorship popping up in the world, who keeps openly expecting a global cycle of violence to cleanse the world, and rejoices openly at any sign of polarization leading to it, keeps mentionning the threat of a "new world order", you think that it is three random words arriving together out of chance, because it's about some order that would be new in the world ?

Some other people with a minimum of culture tend to situate and contextualize a bit better the concepts and notions that keep popping up in his rants. And that are extremely tracable.
Don't know this militant you speak of, and I honestly don't care.

I was basically referring to that many people are reacting with f.ex. hostility just because someone uses a world, without considering the whole picture the other person was trying to communicate. The connotation of worlds themselves has only a meaning when we subjectively put then in a context based on our own experience or conceptions. Just hours ago someone got cough up in the word "liberal"... and it was the downfall of everything, when I mentioned Kennedy.

Some doesn't like the word "globalization" either and reacts to it like it's the enemy :)

Besides, it's about semantics; some say new world order, some say globalization, and some say it's a winged "American Dad".

Control and propaganda comes in many forms and sizes. Sadly, once in a while there comes a person and twist things around. But he apparently does have one thing partially right - human culture do seem to repeat in cycles, like a sinus wave: Stable and prosperity v Unstable and violent. Middle east has fewer years before the next big phase.
Post edited November 09, 2016 by sanscript
Posted November 09, 2016
low rated
avatar
dr.schliemann: Watcha gonna do when Trumpamania runs wild on you?!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw2WMu8WIAAP9Db.jpg

To all who wonder who voted for Trump?
Posted November 09, 2016
avatar
Telika: True in the sense that Trotsky was an ideologue as opposed to a purely self-serving egomaniac gangster à la Stalin (or Trump for that matter). However, he had no qualms sacrificing masses of humans in the name of his ideology's "greater good", so it's hard to speculate on what he would have ended up doing in a position of power. Self-serving maniacs are not always more devastating than well-meaning fanatics. Especially when realities require some shoehorning to fit the Grand Plan's fundamental assumptions.

Given his actions and his cynicism, I suspect that, no matter their differences of motives, Trotsky's hands being less bloody than Stalin's is mostly a matter of circumstances.
avatar
richlind33: Trotsky was brutal and cynical; Stalin, however, was brutal, cynical, and the most profoundly paranoid bureaucrat this world has ever seen.
Actually, when comparing to Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, he was even more paranoid, crazy and horrible than Hitler. The staggering but grotesque number of their own people is beyond words...
Posted November 10, 2016
avatar
Ariod: *snip*
avatar
Luned: I partly agree with your thoughts. Clinton certainly didn't come off looking like anything but the embodiment of all the worst parts of the DC status quo from the Democratic primary, but I'm not certain Sanders would have won, either. On the other hand, I also think only maybe two of the other Republican primary candidates had any shot of winning the general, no matter how much the pundits claimed otherwise.

As an "ABC" voter this election (the behavior of both Clintons back in the 1990s helped me to decide that I didn't really identify with either party, and I'm not the only Gen X'er who feels that way), I'm also not certain that I would have voted for Sanders. As an example, I'd be happy to see 18-year-olds who have busted their butts off in high school to make the grades get some help to earn a degree in something with a real career path, but I have no desire to pay for someone who wants to slouch around for four years drinking and smoking weed to excess and doing the absolute minimum necessary to not flunk out while they "find themselves". And knowing how Washington works, that's the way that program would probably end up functioning, no matter how well-intentioned its creators.
Fair enough, of course keep in mind I'm only saying that about a Trump-Sanders contest. Bernie embodies so many of the things that people *feel* like they're gonna get from Trump - i.e. improved economic outlook and standard of living for middle-working class types, not being constrained by party leadership, etc. But without all the nasty baggage. I know a good few people in my area here who either did like, or would have liked the Sanders message, and who think they are getting the same thing from Trump. Yet still they hold their noses while voting for him over that "baggage". Give them the "best of both worlds" candidate and it seems most would have been on board. And a small margin peeled away from Trump's totals from last night, and shifted to the Dem candidate, would have been enough to change the outcome.

Well on the "free college" idea, that's one of those things where I feel the good far outweighs the bad. Sure there will definitely be some, umm... inefficiencies.... and I remember (fondly? hah...) my college days also (Gen Xer here too). But to have an overall far better-educated public? Hah, you know what, I think if we had that we wouldn't have a President Trump today. Personally I think the positives are so great there (all around, not just in political sense), that I'd put up with a small amount of people gaming the system as a trade-off.

avatar
Luned: More than anything else, this election has shown that both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly out of touch with voter J.Q. Public. The old party lines and definitions just don't fit comfortably for a majority of citizens anymore.
Agreed 100% here, that is certainly the biggest take-away from this election.
Posted November 10, 2016
low rated
i love jews. i guess i would love a NWO where everything is actually in order, according to plan, and not wildly fucked up in every way.
Posted November 10, 2016
avatar
sanscript: I was basically referring to that many people are reacting with f.ex. hostility just because someone uses a world, without considering the whole picture the other person was trying to communicate.
Because in this case we do have the whole picture. We've been reading Kingsbradley's drivel for ages, on the GOG forums. Each piece of the puzzle that give its meaning to the next piece is already there.
Posted November 10, 2016
low rated
avatar
sanscript: I was basically referring to that many people are reacting with f.ex. hostility just because someone uses a world, without considering the whole picture the other person was trying to communicate.
avatar
Telika: Because in this case we do have the whole picture. We've been reading Kingsbradley's drivel for ages, on the GOG forums. Each piece of the puzzle that give its meaning to the next piece is already there.
other than defending conspiracy theories, he did say he hates both marxists and the "free" market globalists, which kinda makes him a moderate right?
Posted November 10, 2016
avatar
Telika: Because in this case we do have the whole picture. We've been reading Kingsbradley's drivel for ages, on the GOG forums. Each piece of the puzzle that give its meaning to the next piece is already there.
avatar
dick1982: other than defending conspiracy theories, he did say he hates both marxists and the "free" market globalists, which kinda makes him a moderate right?
You either have read only one post of his, or you pretend to. Most of us have dealt with his whole GOG forum history.
Posted November 10, 2016
low rated
avatar
Telika: You either have read only one post of his, or you pretend to. Most of us have dealt with his whole GOG forum history.
Because GOG matters?

This is video game forum genius LOL
Posted November 10, 2016
low rated
avatar
Telika: You either have read only one post of his, or you pretend to. Most of us have dealt with his whole GOG forum history.
avatar
Regals: Because GOG matters?

This is video game forum genius LOL
i like the greek guy's taste in games. i don't know about having sex with married women though.
Posted November 10, 2016
low rated
avatar
sanscript: Don't forget - it really matters where you come from, right? :p
That seems like a self-evident truth, yes.

avatar
Ariod: But in defense of my imbecilic-seeming countrymen
And there we have it, even now, while the dust is still settling. The unwarranted, high horse-riding arrogance that so disgusted the people you sneer at and foisted a siege mentality upon them. Looks like your only takeaway from this election is the one that keeps your worldview and narrative safe ("people that voted for the candidate I don't like are morons!"), and you learned nothing from it. Somehow, I'm sure they didn't seem "imbecilic" to you when Obama was elected.
they knew the leadership had already decided the thing beforehand, and they'd be fighting against the party from the get-go. Only a select few were willing to take all that on.
The select few? Like that venal sellout who sold his soul to the devil and hanged his people out to dry? Willing to take in is more like it - meaning a cushy sinecure and a pat on the bald pate.
If the Dems had run Sanders, who had the same kind of "outsider cred" as Trump, minus the side-helping of idiocy and authoritarianism...
...but plus the side helping of starry-eyed idealism, terrible presence and absolutely zero cred as an accomplisher of things.
I don't believe he could have won it without them. They created the perfect storm that allowed some zero-experience zero-intelligence reality star buffoon to win.
And, after almost two years, you insist on doubling down on these baseless notions and refuse to learn from reality. More unwarranted arrogance and dunning-krugeresque estimation of the capabilities of a man who singlehandedly upended an ossified electoral process, fought and fended off his own party, the national and international media and the unrelenting, no holds-barred smearing psyops of the entire establishment for a year and a half. But yeah, he's an inexperienced, zero-intelligence buffoon. Makes sense. It has to, otherwise there goes your narrative, right?
38%, I believe, was the number of Trump voters who said they don't like him and their choice was a "lesser of 2 evils" thing. Nobody thinks "evil" about Sanders, even those who disagree with him.
No, they think "pusillanimous sellout" and "walking pipedream that talked the talk but couldn't walk the walk".
Rather than handing the presidency to Trump, Bernie woulda handed him his ass
The only ass he would have handed Trump would have been the DNC's donkey for him to whip as if it owed him money. Much like Hillary did.
So Trump fans, toast the DNC today as you celebrate your win. Without their game-playing we'd be talking about president-elect Sanders today.
That's a rather short-sighted, tendentious analysis of this gruelling, historic election. But whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.
Having said the above then, the reason people were so susceptible to believing any number of nasty claims about Clinton was because of that intense anger towards the establishment.
Sure. It had nothing to do with her track record and what she actually did do. Partisan dishonesty helps no-one, least of all yourself.
Bottom line there: never doubt the ability of someone to believe something they *want* to believe, however far from the truth it might be.
That's fair. Are you prepared to acknowledge that the same applies to the manifold baseless canards, misrepresentations and outright lies Trump was pelted with throughout the campaign?
Posted November 10, 2016
low rated
avatar
pearnon: And, after almost two years, you insist on doubling down on these baseless notions and refuse to learn from reality. More unwarranted arrogance and dunning-krugeresque estimation of the capabilities of a man who singlehandedly upended an ossified electoral process, fought and fended off his own party, the national and international media and the unrelenting, no holds-barred smearing psyops of the entire establishment for a year and a half. But yeah, he's an inexperienced, zero-intelligence buffoon. Makes sense. It has to, otherwise there goes your narrative, right?
Elaborate on the psyops thingy. It sounds really koolaid and dark-future-like.
Posted November 10, 2016
avatar
vsr: ..For example, in Russia there is no such level of hatred towards Merkel, who is constantly threatening with new sanctions against Russia, or Hollande, who is doing the same stuff, or president of Poland, who is constantly begging for battle tanks from USA to "fight Russia".
avatar
Trilarion: Russia is much more active in the fighting department currently. That's why we have to threat economic sactions. Just as a small side note here.

But let's see, maybe Putin and Trump can become best buddies (same mentality if you ask me) and they will decide the fate of the world for the next years. Then you do not need to worry much about Europeans most probably.
So, you would consider sanctions against USA for fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria......right?
Posted November 10, 2016
low rated
avatar
sanscript: Don't forget - it really matters where you come from, right? :p
avatar
pearnon: That seems like a self-evident truth, yes.

avatar
Ariod: But in defense of my imbecilic-seeming countrymen
avatar
pearnon: And there we have it, even now, while the dust is still settling. The unwarranted, high horse-riding arrogance that so disgusted the people you sneer at and foisted a siege mentality upon them. Looks like your only takeaway from this election is the one that keeps your worldview and narrative safe ("people that voted for the candidate I don't like are morons!"), and you learned nothing from it. Somehow, I'm sure they didn't seem "imbecilic" to you when Obama was elected.

they knew the leadership had already decided the thing beforehand, and they'd be fighting against the party from the get-go. Only a select few were willing to take all that on.
avatar
pearnon: The select few? Like that venal sellout who sold his soul to the devil and hanged his people out to dry? Willing to take in is more like it - meaning a cushy sinecure and a pat on the bald pate.

If the Dems had run Sanders, who had the same kind of "outsider cred" as Trump, minus the side-helping of idiocy and authoritarianism...
avatar
pearnon: ...but plus the side helping of starry-eyed idealism, terrible presence and absolutely zero cred as an accomplisher of things.

I don't believe he could have won it without them. They created the perfect storm that allowed some zero-experience zero-intelligence reality star buffoon to win.
avatar
pearnon: And, after almost two years, you insist on doubling down on these baseless notions and refuse to learn from reality. More unwarranted arrogance and dunning-krugeresque estimation of the capabilities of a man who singlehandedly upended an ossified electoral process, fought and fended off his own party, the national and international media and the unrelenting, no holds-barred smearing psyops of the entire establishment for a year and a half. But yeah, he's an inexperienced, zero-intelligence buffoon. Makes sense. It has to, otherwise there goes your narrative, right?

38%, I believe, was the number of Trump voters who said they don't like him and their choice was a "lesser of 2 evils" thing. Nobody thinks "evil" about Sanders, even those who disagree with him.
avatar
pearnon: No, they think "pusillanimous sellout" and "walking pipedream that talked the talk but couldn't walk the walk".

Rather than handing the presidency to Trump, Bernie woulda handed him his ass
avatar
pearnon: The only ass he would have handed Trump would have been the DNC's donkey for him to whip as if it owed him money. Much like Hillary did.

So Trump fans, toast the DNC today as you celebrate your win. Without their game-playing we'd be talking about president-elect Sanders today.
avatar
pearnon: That's a rather short-sighted, tendentious analysis of this gruelling, historic election. But whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.

Having said the above then, the reason people were so susceptible to believing any number of nasty claims about Clinton was because of that intense anger towards the establishment.
avatar
pearnon: Sure. It had nothing to do with her track record and what she actually did do. Partisan dishonesty helps no-one, least of all yourself.

Bottom line there: never doubt the ability of someone to believe something they *want* to believe, however far from the truth it might be.
avatar
pearnon: That's fair. Are you prepared to acknowledge that the same applies to the manifold baseless canards, misrepresentations and outright lies Trump was pelted with throughout the campaign?
You
You motherfifer
I oughta give you a fucking beer
That was righteous as a thunderstorm smithin' the tyrants of our age


Here, I am just glad he is in power, makes my job easier to get into the country since we cannot support our family anymore here and we want to get the VISAs
Pages:
1
10
20
28
29
30
31
32
40
50
60
70
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionGood luck, America :)(1039 posts) (1039 posts) 
(1039 posts)