Watching it animated really puts into perspective how hard Luffy is going to have to hit Kaido to do some damage. It seems like he's going to need to be Gear2+4 the entire time.
Posts made by Taggerung
-
RE: 739: ''The Strongest Creature - Kaido of the Animals''
-
RE: In memory of my mother
Sorry to hear this. It sounds like you did the best you could in a bad situation which is all anyone can do.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
The value of a degree has decreased substantially because they're so ubiquitous but the cost of getting one has gone up dramatically. This isn't a sustainable model for the long term. It's like when everyone was taking out loans for houses they couldn't afford. Eventually that market collapsed and the economy took a huge hit. Free college would eliminate that possibility. Also the money that would be spent on student loans could go directly back into the economy instead of into banks where it would just be used to make more burdening debt.
The flip side of that is it would make degree's even more ubiquitous and decrease their value even more. Certain fields will be hurt by this more than others. I would say anything that's not STEM would see their market flooded and their wage decreased. Technical professions like plumbing, air conditioner repair, electrician, etc would also probably be insulated from this. Healthcare fields like nursing and physical therapy will be fine for some time. IT will be the best field for growth and job security in the coming years not just in the US but globally. But you're more likely to get business, history and psych majors.
The real problem is the country is switching over more and more to white collar workers but the jobs aren't there as the market is being flooded. A upswing in the economy could encourage more business expansion and development but we're entering a different age essentially. The old path was High School>Technical field/Construction/Factory>Middle Class living or High School>College>Middle Class/Upper Middle Class living now neither of those paths is a sure thing to the middle class. Eventually I think it's going to look like High School>STEM field>Middle Class/Upper Middle Class.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
And the party becomes utterly dysfunctional because it can't conceive of differing opinions within its own party, let alone work with the other side, and can't change its ways to avoid a grim death march towards irrelevance.
At this point the GOP's only real chance of winning the Presidency is widescale voter suppression and not the idiotic "BUT… BUT MY INDEPENDENT STATUS!" nonsense but legit, Jim Crow callback tactics that it's managed to slip through on the state level because people don't view midterms and down ballot races as being important and a Supreme Court that got a conservative majority because of the "Both parties are the same!" mentality.
That's because the party had no business being together in the first place. It was rich white guys cajoling poor white guys into supporting policies and ideas that didn't benefit them. That was bound to fall apart eventually once the poor people figured out they were just being used. The Democrats aren't that divide. Just about every Democrat in this thread has said they would prefer Bernie. The base isn't opposed to his ideas. Hilary wasn't opposed to them last time she was running but that's not her angle this time.
Compromising the values of the Democratic base isn't necessary to have the support of the base. It's only necessary to appease Republicans who as soon as they have any kind of leverage will use that to decimate the values of the Democrats, regardless of whether or not you worked well with them in the past. It makes no sense to compromise when you have the leverage. Nothing you have said makes this a good idea. The only way this works out the way you say it will is if the Democratic establishment is just using minorities to stay in office while actually supporting policies that don't really benefit them. That's the only way this crumbles the same way as the Republicans.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Exactly. The GOP has been attempting to its ranks of any, not just liberal, but moderate Republicans for years now. Because of that, they've shifted so far to the right that they really have no options for growth and can't even really function these days as a political party. John Boehner wasn't conservative enough for the Tea Party elements so they forced him out. Now, Paul Ryan, who was added to Romney's campaign specifically to appeal that crowd, can't even get a budget passed despite having his own party controlling the House.
So the minority Republican voice pushes against the majority Republican voice with so much force that the majority Republicans have to cave to them in congress and with their two leading presidential candidates. And that is supposed to be a lesson on what happens if you don't compromise? You win control of your party without even the numbers advantage.
Could you imagine what that would look like coming from the left? Democrats in congress, all of them, being forced to push for universal healthcare and serious bank regulation non-stop until they get it or whoever the ruling party is has to compromise with them.
Basically a twisted nightmarish hellscape for everyone.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
History says social change is extremely slow and it must be forced often violently down the throats of the majority who hate having to acknowledge their shitty behavior towards minorities. So history isn't on your side and the Republicans fought heavily against civil rights and gay rights. They've been shitty for your entire life. Most of your parents life too. Maybe not as shitty in all areas but they've never been right about anything.
Climate change is real.
Humans should be treated with dignity and not be denied human rights.
Money corrupts politics.
Unchecked domestic surveillance leads to fascism.
If you give people whose only concern is quarterly profit control of the economy, their only concern will still be quarterly profit.
Wealth doesn't trickle down.It's not about me being smarter. These ideas can not be debated. They can't be compromised. You don't even want to start the conversation on right side. You want to work from the middle and watch them pull it to the right and somehow you keep calling this balanced and fair. Real balance would mean the left shoving shit down their throat as much as they shove shit down our throat. That is using the system that we have the best way we can. Any other way is a slow decline to their ideas. That's how the banks have ended up so powerful. That's how the NSA has gotten so big it doesn't know what to do with all the data it's collected. That's why climate change is still being debated and we've got people fracking mountains like the longer term consequences won't matter. That's why wage hasn't kept up with economic growth and wealth inequality has gotten so out of hand.
Because you think we should compromise with them. And the Dems think they should compromise with them. And they can keep getting elected on promises of real change and no follow through because I guess the people who elect them actually want them to compromise in the end. You deserve the Democratic party. I hope you guys have a good life together compromising all of your values to satisfy idiots while you wonder why change hasn't come.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Obama pretty much brute forced through Obamacare. And even still it was a weakened version of what he wanted. And as a result? He used most of his political capital up on it. It was important, it was good to do, we need an even better version. But now the other side has been fighting to remove it literally nonstop for the last six years with dozens of attempts to repeal it, and its been impossible to get anything else done. For cripes sake, they plan to sit on a supreme court justice for a year, just because they can. We're at the end of April and Congress has still, literally, done NOTHING this year.
Obamacare is a mess. It provided millions of people with health insurance while fixing none of the problems with the healthcare system by forcing a lot of people to have buy shitty coverage they will rarely use but might have to so that in case they get sent to the hospital they don't go bankrupt. And it didn't have to be that way. Instead they should have passed whatever they wanted.
And guess what the Republican's would have ended up doing regardless? The same stupid shit they're doing now.
You just called them children. Why do you keep writing about them as if in the future anything they come up with will be reasonable? Give me one good laws or legislature that has started with and been championed primarily by Republicans that was opposed by Democrats in the last 40 years. They are a party of bad ideas. Why would you compromise with them if you can help it? You will only get a worse idea.
If it's 50/50 then you have no choice but to cooperate.
If it's 60/40 them, they're going to buttfuck you, regardless, whatever way they can in as many ways as they can.
If it's 60/40 you, you're saying we should cooperate.
You don't win in any scenario Robby. They win. You just break even at best. If you average it, it's a lose. This is the pendulum you don't just want to keep swinging back and forth. It's the one we all must keep. This is the path to fixing shit where it works out best in the long run. Just a steady drop in quality.. forever
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
The difference is one party is acting like reasonable adults, and the other is children throwing tantrums. If both sides acted like adults and were willing to actually negotiate and compromise, it'd be completely different and we'd generally get something down the middle. But as is the Republican side has decided that its either 100% their way or not at all.
System is broken, it needs fixing. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got. No saying that's how it should be. It's just how it is. The two sides are different and they have different strengths and weaknesses. The founders had ideals, but they couldn't predict everything or the march of change and technology, and they knew they couldn't and so they left tons of leeway for things to change.
And no, I wouldn't want Dems getting a super majority and then steamrolling through 8000 different things, however much I might agree with them personally, because that would be bad in the long run.
Being in charge and wielding that power responsibly and trying to work with the other side is also important. If you become a dictatorship that creates its own problems and backlash, especially when the pendulum swings the other way (and it ALWAYS does.)
How do you expect anything to get fixed if you're paralyzed to the point of inaction because you're afraid later something will change? You're basically saying it's not just futile but it's also a bad idea for the Dems to pass universal healthcare if they have the ability to do so because later on they might not have as much power.. presumably the republicans have the power and those silly children will actually USE that power to undo universal healthcare.
So we shouldn't have it because later we might not have it?
We shouldn't break up the banks because later they might do what they've been doing for the past 40 years and completely erode the governments ability to restrict them.
We shouldn't repeal the Patriot Act because later on, they might pass another Patriot Act.
We shouldn't push through legislation that overturns Citizens United because they might make it legal again like it already is.
This is your logic. I don't see how this makes any sense at all. The system is broken but if we fix it, they might break it again.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
The only reason anybody would make that argument is if they'd actually been paying attention to the last twenty-two years of partisan politics.
If a republican takes office, and has control, Obamacare will be shut down inside a week. But what will replace it? Maybe nothing ever. A completely unblockable super majority is a rare thing, and even if it were in place, the Democrat side would be afriad to use it constantly because of eventual reprisals.
And this is my problem with the Democrats. They play lip service to left policies but when the time comes to enact them they don't do it. In this thread both of you, and others, have ridiculed people for expecting Obama to accomplish more and both of you and others have placed the blame on Republican gridlock but that was never the whole story. The whole story includes that Democrats don't use power when they have it. You both have made arguments that the presidency doesn't have super powers and that a lot of power rest with congress so that's the place where you can hope for real change but the Dems in congress are just as bad as the weak Dem in the big seat. AND to top it all off the people most likely to get the most exposure and money that will lead to an election at the local level are people that the party supports. The same party that seems hellbent on riding election after election on the fear of the other side.
I don't think either of you is as hard on the Dems as you should be for this behavior and I think you encourage people not to be. You've both agreed that, of course the Dems won't do anything when they have power, as if that's perfectly acceptable while you've spent pages and pages going on about the importance of giving these people your vote. It's incredibly important that we have them in office even though we know they're not going to do anything effective. Change will come to politics eventually if we just keep voting for them without expecting anything except for them to not be Republicans. That's the message I think you both send and it's shitty because like I've said before, you provide no incentive for them to change.
The main check and balance is that you know, eventually, the table is going to turn the other way and the other side will have full control, and you don't want them steamrolling and abusing that when they get it. And right now, the republican party leaders are full of children that would absolutely abuse things, who look no further than tomorrow on issues and don't have any long term ideas.. which is how you ended up with two super hated canidates in the lead.
No the main check and balance is division of powers. They didn't even plan or want political parties when they were putting this all together so saying that the plan was for things to swing back and forth is load as far as I know. If I'm wrong, school me.
I think we have two super hated candidates in the lead because you and voters like you have no expectations from the party you give your vote to. The Tea Party has expectations that they hold the people they elect to which is why everyone in this thread is shitting their pants. They don't even have a numbers advantage but they've manged to parley that into shifting the entire voice of the party. What they want is stupid but what they've managed to do is very real and very powerful. They're the main cause of gridlock. They were the ones holding Boehner's feet to the fire. The left should be emulating that but it's politicians are too comfortable and that comfortableness is made possible by voters like you.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
If you win your parties nomination on a platform of universal healthcare, clearly that's what the people who voted for you want. If your party controls the executive branch and the legislative branch you should be able to do whatever you want. The only checks and balance left is the court. It wasn't Obama's fault that they didn't get the healthcare they promised passed, it was the fault of the entire party, but he was their leader. And they should have been able to the pass it as easily as a republican controlled congress and executive branch would be able to remove it. We've had so much discussion about how dangerous a Republican controlled house AND presidency is for so many reasons. A democratic version should be equally dangerous to republican ideals. Either that or people are blowing out of proportion how dangerous it is for a single party to control two branches. You can't have it both ways though unless you're arguing that Republican's would be more united in destroying democratic policies than Democrats would be in destroying republican policies.
I think when that one guys starts basically yelling at the australian it's embarrassing but other than that I think both sides made points. That Aussie was really downplaying how much of a unicorn Obama was running as while complaining that Bernie was too much of a unicorn to accomplish anything. Meanwhile the turks ignored the math between election comparisons and where on the political spectrum independent voters fall. So they were both flat out wrong sometimes. Also the Turks are like if Joe Rogan had a news show. They're not like, Al-Jazeera or some facts only news without an agenda. They appeal, very much so, to the hardcore left.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Not necessarily. If people like you have your way, it'll be President Donald J. Trump or Ted Cruz taking office….. Right now I can't honestly think of which is worse...
Save the fear mongering for the general or don't even bother with it at all. Trump and Cruz can barely pull their own party together much less entire country nationally.
They don't have a chance.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Hillary's voters are generally older so you won't run into them or see them doing things like that as often.
I was just trying to explain how the energy in the city was very pro-bernie, I don't think I conveyed that very well but wherever you saw political activity it was usually associated with Bernie. He had a huge turnout at Temple University a week or two ago. So big they had to extend the event. I didn't think he would win the state but I was hoping the numbers in Philly would reflect that kind of energy but they didn't.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Very disappointed in PA. I actually had someone from the Sanders campaign knock on my door the other day and a couple of my friends were even out canvasing for him. I haven't talked to one person who liked Hilary. Granted I don't talk to many people but the numbers for this are really disappointing.
Time to change my party back and wait angrily till Hilary takes office.
-
RE: Game of Thrones (tv show thread)
I don't think the death of any character hurt me as much as the way the butchered Dorne. Tragic.
I liked the rest though.
Except Olly. I really want him to die painfully in a way he doesn't see coming.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
House Cruz and House Kaisch have put aside their differences, or similarities, in order to form an alliance to stump House Trump.
I don't think Trump would get enough delegates anyway but this certainly removes a lot of chance from the equation. Unless it backfires but I'm not sure what the chances of that are.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
He's campaigned hard on a handful of issues that are important to people and struck a cord.
His main thing has been "I'm against big business influencing politics", which happens to be a thing a lot of people Hillary specifically is very guilty of. His main issue is the absolute weakest point Hillary has and the area people feel she is the most unqualified.
That and they've spent years and years trying to make Hillary look awful so a lot of people do have a negative opinion of her, whereas really no one had any opinion about Al Gore… he was just the VP guy.
Who are you talking to? Obviously that's how he's got to where he is today. That's not the point though. Until he had a few wins under his belt and even after NONE of the major news outlets considered him even an option. ALL of them where framing this as between Hilary and whoever the republicans could come up with. He was viewed as so inconsequential the Republicans didn't even utter his name. Most of the minor news outlets were treating this the same way. People in 2015 and 2014 looking at what would play out in 2016 had this being Hilary's time, no question. Obviously she's the winner who could possibly even contest that. It should have been as clear cut as Gore's run and the republican smear campaign has not really effected Democrats. As Ubiq article shows, they still love Hilary by a lot. I don't think the republican smear campaign has effected independent's opinion of Hilary as much as Hilary being Hilary has. She has long and strong ties with the people responsible for causing the worst recession in recent history. She's also not a progressive, she follows the Democrats when they start moving in a certain direction but she's never at the front. People who typically vote democrat notice these things and probably rank them as more important tests of her character than Benghazi.
Your logic, applied to this situation, is to say you shouldn't HAVE to pick one of those two options and instead, decide to stay in the house and forego letting it be fumigated on principle because you shouldn't HAVE to leave.
While your principles may mean a lot to you, doesn't change the fact that your house is going to be destroyed when those termites get to the important structural beams and the like.This is a bad analogy. Fumigating will remove the termite problem completely. Temporary inconvenience or loss of money to a hotel are not great options but if I choose either one my termite problem is gone forever. That is not the situation though. A better analogy would be the exterminators only giving me the option of trying to kill the termites with carpenter ants or with fire because both of those options just leave me with more or a different problem instead of solving the problem I started with which is what is happening here. Since those are my options I'm willing to just accept a lose on the house at this point which isn't unreasonable considering it's condition will just steadily deteriorate with either option.
You're right that this is about ideology though. We've had this discussion several times. Hilary will always be not just a viable but welcomed option for you especially considering the position the alternatives would leave you in. I've done my best to explain my reasoning why she is unacceptable at this point and I'm sure you think I'm selfish, naive, etc but just so that you understand I know the stakes. To me they're worth putting you and me and my family and friends all at risk in different ways because in the long run candidates like Hilary are not acceptable leaders. I don't think she will push money out of politics. I don't think she will reign in the banks. I don't think she will reign in domestic spying. I don't see these things as negotiable anymore when it comes to picking a leader. They are essential.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
I don't think many people, certainly no major and most minor media outlets, considered Sanders to be serious competition.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Bernie has earned a disproportionate amount of delegates from people who don't reflect the makeup of the Democratic Party and in states that allowed crossover voters while performing much worse in states that don't, which would suggest that a significant portion of the people who voted for him aren't actually Democrats.
Hilary has won more open primaries than Bernie and they're even on closed primaries. So events where there is cross over potential Hilary comes out on top. Also you regularly post the stats for black turnout after each primary so I'm sure you're well aware of the stats of the people who are voting in these. Explain how the people who are voting for Sanders don't reflect the makeup of the Democratic Party.
Also there are plenty of people who voted for Sanders just because they personally like the guy and not because they think the Democratic Party is out of step with their values. From all that, I don't think I'd say that a large part of the Democratic Party feels that the party no longer represents their ideals; especially seeing as how three quarters of Bernie voters say even now that they'll support her in November.
So Sander's voters don't reflect the Democratic Party and a significant portion of them aren't actually democrats but also they don't think the Democratic Party is out of step with their values. This sounds like independent voters who lean democrat. I used the words "Democratic electorate" instead of Democratic Party because it's important to differentiate the people who vote democrat and the people who consider themselves democrats. Hilary is the party's choice. Among democrats (different from the people who vote democrat) she is number #1. That article you posted further solidifies that she is what Democrats wants. But she's not trouncing Bernie in the way that she should be so like I said the question is, if she so closely embodies everything that Democrats want and stand for why isn't she winning harder. You brought up brought up Gore but that only makes the situation seem worse to me. What did Gore capture coming off of the Clinton administration that Hilary coming off the Clinton and Obama administration can't?
Voting for Hilary because you like her and voting for her because you don't want a republican in the seat are two different things. Fear is a powerful motivator and has been crux of several long discussions with people in this thread. The resounding message often being that even if you don't like Hilary, she is way better than Trump or anyone of the Republican side getting the seat. But that's not a vote because you like her or support her or think she'd even be good at the job. It's a vote against the other side. You just think they'll be much worse at it. I think a lot of people feel that way and are moved to vote for whoever the Democrats put forward in the election simply to keep the Reps out. I do think a significant portion of the people voting for Sander's believes he better embodies what the Democratic party should stand for, even if they're still willing to do their duty and keep Trump or Cruz from getting the seat in the general. And if they feel that way then that means they disagree with the choice that the Democratic party and most democrats are making.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
I don't see how the post that you're quoting and that article disagree.
Shouldn't the question be, if she's so closely embodies what the Democratic party stands for why isn't she sweeping this primary?
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Their records. You can check them if you wish. They're virtually the same on most issues. http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm
A lot of what I'm going to say sounds negative so I want to preface it by saying that I appreciate those links and they have opened my eyes to some things I didn't know about Hilary. It has changed my opinion of her slightly but not in the ways that matter the most to me. Mostly it's opened my eyes to how other people can perceive her so settling for Hilary seems less like a betrayal of democracy. I still won't do it but her record is good in certain places, nothing is spotless but she is a politician who has been planning for a national election for about 2 decades so that's expected.
I've got some problems with that website though. How it scales things how its weight certain opinions, even ones that have changed against each other. I don't like how it uses statements because statements are easy to make but they don't really mean much if your actions don't reflect them.
Take healthcare. It gives her a strong favor for Obamacare but uses her statements on universal healthcare, which Obamacare is not, to give her favorability. Which is conflicting because her current message is different from her previous message. Before universal healthcare was the horse she was riding. Now she's riding the Obamacare horse and saying universal healthcare is a pipe dream and is unrealistic. These statements should conflict with how "liberal" she is. One is hard left the other is moderate left. She's got more history with one than the other but the other position is her most recent one but that's not reflected well when they sum her up.
There are other things like her statements about homeland security make her liberal but the real test of that was the patriot act which she voted for. To me that would nullify any of the nice things she's said because when it came down to action she didn't follow through.
But neither did a lot of democrats, that is undeniable now but it also points to what this primary is really about and why there is so much animosity between the people who usually give their vote to the democratic party in the general. There is a real identity crisis with the party right now. Bernie may be a million or two votes behind but no one expected their would even be a fight of this magnitude between the possible first female president Hilary Clinton and a pale independent senator from vermont. There is a large portion of the Democratic electorate who feel that the party no longer represents their ideas on the issues that are most important to them. This is not the youth and naivety, it's reflected in the voting record of the Democrats.
-
RE: Random News Article Discussion II
Wasn't aware that negro and nigger were considered equally offensive I've always been lead to believe it was the latter.
Consider yourself educated
And yet despite those horrors they still had it easier than the folks that did the actual work on
the plantation.Holy shit. Are you serious? Are you actually trying to compare the lives of human beings who were born and died as property? Who were raped no matter where they worked. Who were breed no matter where they worked. Who would be forced to have kids whether they wanted it or not and have that child grow up to be property, bought, beat, mutilated, sold and raped at the leisure of the person who owned them.
They all lived a hell that you clearly do not even understand so let me educate you some more. You don't get to live 200 years later and say which ones had it easier than the others. That is an insult to every suffering that they endured and it again since you did not hear it the first time it perpetuates the mentality that these human beings who were stripped of all humanity had FORCED on them. Let me own your life and the life of your kids and their kids. Let them be mine to do whatever the fuck I want with whenever the fuck I want for whatever reason pleases me.
And let some pissant come along 200 year later after I've raped your wife and your kids and had the flesh torn from their bodies for my amusement or their education and say you had it easy. That is not hyperbole. That is not an exaggeration. You are really really pushing the limit on this one guy just so you can add some edge to your vocabulary.
-
RE: Random News Article Discussion II
Which would be weird since Obama is generally criticized by most republicans for for speaking up on things
like the problem of police brutality and racial inequality something Carson doesn't think is a legit problem which lines up perfectly with the Republicans own views on the issue.What does that have to do with anything? None of this stops the term from being offensive. I don't understand how this is even a discussion. Can we just call Carson a dumb nigger? Is that cool to do now? Because I don't see a big difference between the two terms.
A house negro was a human being who was born into the worst kind of life a person can imagine. Often they were the product of a rape. Kept close to the man responsible for raping their mother but still denied their humanity. They were still property. They still lived in fear and servitude and their position and the circumstances of their birth would not save or spare them from harsh reality that they were not considered human.
It's not a word that you can throw into a conversation to spice things up. To do that denies the unimaginable horrors that many house slaves faced AND it continues to perpetuate the divisive mentality that slave owners drilled into the minds of the humans they considered their property. A disgusting tactic that pitted people who were already in a terrible condition against each other so that they, as a whole, would be weaker. The problem was never the slaves working in the house. The problem was the people who owned all of them.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
I acknowledge that Bernie has caused her to fight harder for these issues, but people seem to forget that she has always been pretty far left. Her record was more liberal than 70% of the democrats in the senate during her time there. She has been rated more liberal than Obama and as liberal as Elizabeth Warren.
Who is rating Hillary as liberal as Elizabeth Warren?
-
RE: Random News Article Discussion II
That feels like a pretty offensive term to throw around.
But then again i'm Swedish so what do i know about this
It's offensive. The term only exists because of the dynamics that slave owners forced on slaves. If someone came on the forums and said Obama belongs back in the cotton fields because they disagree with his healthcare law that person would probably end up removed from the discussion. It's the same thing.
-
RE: Random News Article Discussion II
But they're leaving Jackson on the back of the 20? That's a very confused bill.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
@Cyan:
"Tired of the partisan system"? Tough shit. It's been this way for over two hundred years, it's the only way things get done within the government, and breaking up the GOP and the Democrats wouldn't do shit to advance progressive causes anymore than they already are. You want to have a say in who the Democrats, or the Republicans, or the Greens, or the Libertarians, pick as their nominee? Join the damn team and work with it.
It being 200 years old doesn't make it a good way of doing things or the best way or the only way. It's age really has no bearing on the discussion of it's effectiveness.
You also don't know what would happen if the GOP and the Democrats split. No one does. But then you list four parties like we have four choices. If we had four viable choices that would mean the Dems and the Reps had been split up and this would be a very different election thread but we can't get four viable choices by just falling in line with the same system that we've been using.
So which is it? Splitting is bad or we need more viable parties. Or is the issue more complex than join the darn team!!
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
This is insane.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/new-york-election-fraud-lawsuit-results-voter-purge-hearing-open-primary-election-justice-usa/ http://nypost.com/2016/04/19/54000-brooklyn-voters-vanish-ahead-of-primary-day/It might be clerical error and incompetence. It looks suspicious but without knowing more information about the people that were purged it's hard to say who stands to benefit from this. Without that it just adds to the continuing shitshow that this primary has been in plenty of states.
-
RE: Disney animation thread
I saw the Jungle Book. It was visually nice. The kid wasn't bad. Some of the voices were stale. Like I saw Sher Khan but I heard Idris very clearly. They never became one character. Bill Murry and Lupita were fine in their roles. I feel there was some disconnect between Walken and King Louie too but King Louie was so impressive hearing Walkens voice come out of him and singing was still really good. Overall it wasn't bad.
-
RE: League of Legends
I have been waiting for the Taric VU for so long. I bought all his skins what feels like years ago or whenever they first announced this and I've been waiting ever since and he looks so great. Everything is great. His dance is great. Each of his skins feels unique. His kit looks pretty good. I wanted to take him toplane because that's mostly all I do these days but I don't think I'd mind taking him bot. They did a really good job.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
I think this video does an excellent job of explaining why the Clinton name rings out so well in the black community even to this day. And you shouldn't have to feel embarrassed for asking that minority question. The whole issue gets convoluted when it comes to votes. Black people are this massively important block capable of changing the tide. Responsible when things go wrong (prop 8) responsible when things go right (obama) responsible when things go sideways (Hilary). So big so important so necessary so capable of swinging whatever pendulum is need at the time. When people are in the polls black people become a monolithic tsunami.
Then it's over and we're back to being ignored and so powerless that ignoring us comes with no consequences. It's head spinningly stupid and incredibly patronizing when you have to listen to people try to wrap their head around this idea.
I also think the video address's what a lot of Sander's supporters feel. That the Democratic party is basically playing the same game with minorities and middle/poor class that Republicans are. It's not about Bernie being a savior. Just like Trump is rallying the frustrated and disillusioned voters of the republican party, Bernie is pulling that same energy from the left and it's real. To dismiss it as naive or college grade is insulting and will only fuel the divide because it's none of those things.
Everyone here is talking about compromise but the banks haven't compromised. Wall Street hasn't compromised. Pharmaceutical companies haven't compromised. The NSA doesn't even know the meaning of the word. It started a national argument and was willing to put the security of every Apple phone in the country at risk just so they could get a backdoor into people's phones that they didn't need and NEITHER party is raining down the type of condemnations that they should be. Obama actually chastised the public for supporting Apple's side. He is supposed to be on the left. In what world does left mean granting the government fascist powers?
The only ones that are compromising are the voters. That's bullshit. It's maddening. That's why Hilary brings out the worst in the people who support Sanders because she represents EVERYTHING they're mad about. They're not mad at the right. The right is fucked, but we all know that. They're mad at the left. Because it's not fair or right or mature or realistic that the only people who have to compromise here is us and I'm so tired of hearing that pretentious garbage. It doesn't even come from a decent place. It comes from fear and the answer isn't to face it but to just live constantly in fear each time an election rolls around.
You guys keep up with the Bernie Bro shit though. I hope this get uglier before it's done. I can only hope the left is so polarized by the end of this it cracks.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Then how do you explain Sanders continuing to lose the black vote and Latino afterwards and even in Super Tuesday states outside of the South where Bernie outspent Hillary like Massachusetts or that Bernie even won like Oklahoma?
What's her name Ubiq?
Show me some solid legislature that she is responsible for that has quantitatively benefited latinos and blacks. Show me her sticking her neck out, politically, for those communities. What in her record brought these people to her? Not her ties to latino/black leaders. Not the network she's built up in the south. I can't find anything so great about Hilary's actual record, especially when you put it next to Bernie's, that would make blacks and latinos give her the amount of support they have. The only thing you're left when you look at her record with these communities is her name.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/sanders-narrowly-outspends-clinton-ads-march-15-states-n538836
Far as Texas goes, Sanders actually began campaigning there before Hillary did and pulled out when it became obvious that people weren't receptive to him. He didn't choose to skip that state altogether like his campaign is pretending.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-outspends-sanders-super-tuesday-states-n524266
He didn't skip it entirely you're right. We're both getting this information from SMG delta so I'm assuming it's at least comparable. Alabama nothing. Georgia nothing. Tennessee nothing. Virginia nothing. Arkansas nothing. Texas, a pittance. I would love to see what Mississippi and Louisiana looked like. But stuff and nonsense from the Sander's campaign of course. A fiction concocted to inspire the whites waiting to vote in the north to not give up.
Like I said. He was stupid. He should have pretended to give a fuck like Bill and then maybe he wouldn't be in such dire straits.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
You could also argue that congress might change hands within the 4 years of a presidency. But then the question would be would the dems work with Bernie even if he represents all the things they say they love.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
No more nonsensical than you turning up the anti-Hillary rhetoric at almost every opportunity.
If I made an anti-Hillary post at every opportunity this thread gives I'd probably be removed again.
It's fine to talk about how Bernie's policies are unrealistic. How his supporters are ignorant immature idealist. It's fine to slam Cruz or Trump or LOL i'm sorry, DRUMPF, so funny, so not over used and as annoying as shillary. Those topics can be brought up and beat to death by everyone and it's a gay old time.
I pop in every 10 or 15 pages. You'll be drumpfing in no time don't fret.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Oh, Lord, this nonsense. Bernie campaigned heavily in Texas, Florida, and North Carolina (he actually spent a lot more money in North Carolina than Hillary did) but still lost all three states by wide margins. Far as the others go, does the fact that Clinton didn't heavily campaign in the states he's recently won mean those don't count either?
Of course they count. Every state counts. What part of stupid decision didn't you understand. I'm not buying that she won the minority vote on her amazing record though. Or that minorities weighed their options and thought she had their best interest at heart. She's got a powerful name that goes a long way in the south for no good reason other than Bill Clinton didn't ignore black people. Sadly that's more than most so he gets credit like he did something good.
And where are you getting these numbers for Texas, Florida, and NC spending? For Texas at least the numbers I've seen show Hilary spending far more than Sanders. And even if you come up with a good source, which I'm sure you will Ubiq, that doesn't factor in the rest, read most of, the south. 3/11 states is not solid footing to start calling things nonsense.
I go to reddit and people are so blinded by Bernie even when he loses he can't lose. I come here and people are so blinded by the people at reddit they're trying make arguments for why Hilary is a good presidential candidate. Now that is nonsense.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
So when it's poor whites voting in republicans, they're actually just lost ignorant souls.
When it's poor blacks voting democrat they actually have a firm grasp on all the issues and how interrelated they are and they're making completely educated decisions on whats in their best interest.
Or is it whatever narrative is convenient for whatever argument you want to make.
Hilary won the south because she's had 20 years in the political spotlight. Her last name is Clinton. And Bernie made the stupid decision not to campaign heavily there. Without such sweeping victories down there she wouldn't be in nearly as comfortable a position as she's in now.
Her record is palatable only when you compare it to the people on the right. She's done nothing progressive. She's done nothing outside of her comfort zone. She's never made a hard decision to go against the majority. She will compromise. Great. Lovely. That's not a record worth supporting. It's not record worth voting for. It would be hilarious when she compromises your future and your rights, in the form of bad trade agreements and expansion of already too expansive national security policies, if it wasn't also so infuriating to see so many people so eager to defend her as if she's worth defending.
You can give her your vote because it'll keep the other guy out of office. I don't think that's a good reason but it's what passes for respectable and mature in these parts. If you're giving her your vote because you think she would actually make a decent president based on her record. That's as ridiculous as people voting for Cruz because of his record.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
A yes her wonderful track record of setting aside personal differences and working with democrats, republicans, bankers, the oil industry, wall street, arms dealers, pharmaceutical companies, really anyone who will help her further her political career in any way.
Love how this is a selling point for her.
-
RE: FLCL 2: The sequel!
The movie came three years after the series was done and it was fine.
Also, Samurai Champloo was basically the follow up in spirit and intent.
And Bebop is a Lupin III spinoff to begin with.
You can get more of the same with a slightly different cast and be fine. ANd also be terrible. Its too early to say anything on this one other than they have big shoes to step into.
Except a movie isn't quite as long as 12 episodes and for the life of me I can't think of a single conversation I've had about bebop even bringing up the movie. It's inoffensive and unmemorable. Success?
Samurai Champloo has nothing to do with bebop. It deals with completely different issues in a completely different way with completely different characters. The only thing that's the same is the style. Bring that up is like saying Django is the followup to Kill Bill in spirit and intent.
Similarly, Lupin is to Bebop what Venture Bros is to the Hardy Boys and Johnny Quest. It's really apples and oranges here. Paying homage to what inspired you is not in any way the same thing as a direct sequel to a body of work.
A lot more can go wrong here than right and I also think they're just in it for the money. From that perspective=outlook bad and I don't think I need to defend that nearly as much as I'm doing so I'm going to stop.
I really would like it to be great though Robby. Anything less than that would be a pointless cash in as far as I'm concerned.
-
RE: FLCL 2: The sequel!
It's density and brevity and insanity was all part of what made FLCL so unique and wonderful.
The universe didn't need expansion because it was just a frame for character development. The story doesn't need to move forward because the story was already told, same reason why it doesn't need to look backward.
I just feel like it's perfect and I don't mean that in like a hyperbolic way but I mean it in the sense that what it did was extremely ambitious and successful and they made it look effortless. The show can be watched and enjoyed on so many levels. You can watch the whole thing several times and understand it more and more each time and/or you can just enjoy the silliness of it all. That is very hard to do.
I don't see that happening for 12 more episodes, it really shouldn't have worked out as well as it did to begin with.
I do trust adult-swim a lot. They have good taste and they always seem to support the people who make their content and the people who enjoy it even if the content isn't drawing a huge audience.
Still this is like a sequel to Bebop. Yeah there are other characters and you can do a prequel or something but the only reason I can see for someone going back to properties like these and trying to bring them back is money. The stories they told are over. They did it, they did it well.
I'm not saying it's impossible for it to be good but I don't understand the perspective of making this sequel for artistic reason and unless you come at it from that angle you're going to fail.
-
RE: FLCL 2: The sequel!
I can see why they would want do it but if they have any appreciation for the source they should not want to do it. FLCL is a coming of age story and it completely opens and closes itself in 6 episodes. This is a bad idea.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Hilary made an appearance on one of my favorite shows this week. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be but, that might as well be her campaign slogan. Not that bad. Still that like 6 seconds where she enters the room and the music is playing is top notch.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
Yeah that was cutting edge snark mate. No one can accuse your vocabulary of being basic as fuck after dropping that gem.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
It's not so much I don't like him personally as much as I just don't like him ideologically,
him sucking up to Trump like he is definitely doesn't help. Also if you can come up with a
more fitting term that fits what Carson is trying to desperately do I'm all ears.wow. I think that term works. you did it.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
For most people someone having your SSN along with enough of your other information could lead to identity theft. That could leave financial scars that could haunt a person for decades even after they get it all sorted out. But Trump isn't most people so I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to try anything with his information. This is a nice headline but it will probably do them more harm than it will do to Trump, messing with a presidential candidate is beyond stupid.
House negro .
It's so funny to bring black people back to the dynamics slavery forced on them.
-
RE: Random News Article Discussion II
They were going to deny whoever he picked anyway. Some people are saying he's being offered up as a lamb to the sacrificial alter of unreasonable congressional obstruction. That can play during the election cycle. Then Obama or Hilary can pick someone else. Srinivasan or Watford. All of these guys seem to be pretty moderate though. Garland might be the most moderate. On the issues that are important to me all these guys seem like a coin flip.
They've been doing this illegally for years. Even if courts rule this to be a violation of privacy and basic civil liberties, what can we do to stop the NSA from "anonymously" tipping off cops?
You can get out there and vote man!!!!
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
According to exit polls, black voters in Florida and North Carolina went eight to two for Hillary while Latinos in Florida went seven to three for Hillary.
Those numbers are pretty consistent across the entire South.
what percent of the voters did those groups make up?
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
well that's democracy apparently.
-
RE: Venture Brothers
This was the best episode of the season so far. Probably one of the best ever for me.
-
RE: Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
That petition has as much weight as the one trying to arrest Bill for violating polling rules.