TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
142. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.31%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    49 34.51%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 35.21%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.82%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.15%
Page 23 of 540 FirstFirst ... 38131819202122232425262728333843485358636873123273523 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 575 of 13482

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #551
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Also, I swear to god but I think Tony honestly believes that there is this big political entity called The Left and they all get a weekly memo which informs them what to think / believe.
    Time to leave politics to people who understand what nuance and shades of grey are I think.

  2. #552
    Member
    Registered: Jun 1999
    Location: Procrastination, Australia
    Indeed. Like...:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post

    Sidenote: This hatred for Russia is somewhat amusing. The entire period from the 30's onward has been characterized by nothing but fawning praise for Russia from the academic and journalistic left wing worldwide. Hell, all the way up until the late 90's you can find any number of pieces written fawning over how remarkably efficient, just, equitable, etc. etc. the Soviet System was and how America has a lot to learn from Russian Socialism.

    Now just in the past four years the left's attitude towards Russia has gone from reverential to sheer hatred. Why?

    That's not a rhetorical question. I understand the geopolitical shifts but I don't understand how the "professional thinkers" in the left would shift their sentiments so dramatically in such a short period of time.

    What in the hell? This is like you learned everything about the left from right wing ideologue panic merchants who bang on and on about "The Left" all the time.
    Anyone who knew the first thing - The First! - about progressives in the 20th century would know Stalinism caused massive divisions in the communists, never mind "The Left", and Leninism wasn't even some universally accepted thing (what with the Bolsheviks being a somewhat ironic moniker for the minority side of the Russian communist movement, initially).
    If there's one characteristic that you could probably ascribe to something called The Left it's that it has been riven with fractious infighting since the name was coined and can't agree on much at all.

    So no, it's not a rhetorical question. It's not even a question outside of the "why is the world flat?" kind of non starter category.

  3. #553
    Taking the Death Toll
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: ideally far away
    How is it that Tony hasn't been put on the Sluggs train by now?

  4. #554
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I've always tried to update my beliefs with new information & try to check them against data. I think it's why my position is almost entirely unrepresented in the US, center-right liberal cosmopolitan with a few decidedly social dem leanings. (So the Left-Right split doesn't work well with me. In the UK I'd pretty clearly be a LibDem. Hell if that party existed in the US, I'd probably run for office under its banner myself.) The most prominent representative in the US would be Fareed Zakaria, and it encourages me that his opinions are also very consciously data driven. But yeah, apparently no one or few else ever got the memo. Too bad for them.

  5. #555
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    It's not in Russia's interest to release the emails. If Russia has proof of extreme malfeasance on Hillary's part(which I am told they do, via hacks into the Clinton Foundation) then their interest would be to hold on to what they have and use it as leverage to discourage Hillary from starting any conflicts with them.
    Obviously the emails have no blackmail value and almost no election value. The FBI investigation ended and Comey made a strong case against her, I was surprised how strong, but Democrats just shrugged their shoulders and said 'at least that's over'. There is very little chance that the remaining undisclosed emails will contain information that is significantly more incriminating than what has already come out. And even if they do, it's unlikely to change anyone's mind. Hillary supporters will jump through hoops and walk over fire to rationalize anything she does, because it's election season and that's what people do.

    Sidenote: This hatred for Russia is somewhat amusing. The entire period from the 30's onward has been characterized by nothing but fawning praise for Russia from the academic and journalistic left wing worldwide. Hell, all the way up until the late 90's you can find any number of pieces written fawning over how remarkably efficient, just, equitable, etc. etc. the Soviet System was and how America has a lot to learn from Russian Socialism.

    Now just in the past four years the left's attitude towards Russia has gone from reverential to sheer hatred. Why?

    That's not a rhetorical question. I understand the geopolitical shifts but I don't understand how the "professional thinkers" in the left would shift their sentiments so dramatically in such a short period of time.
    You seem to use the words "left" and "establishment" as the strawman villains for everything you don't like.
    And then you complain when other people do the same when talking about the "right".
    Partisan people just villainize the other side, it makes politics easier, they don't have to think too hard.

    To answer your question, Putin took the Presidency back 4 years ago. That's the main reason why. And since then, we've seen his government cracking down on political opposition, invading another country, helping to end the Arab spring, suppressing independent media, threatening to shut off the gas, gay bashing, developing new nukes, and so on. It's pretty easy to figure out.

    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Hillary was acting out of inertia not malicious intent
    After watching Comey's speech, reading PolitiFact's take on it, and other objective sources, I think it's hard to conclude that she was using the server out of convenience or inertia. For one thing, she's not lazy and she's not stupid. She knew damn well the department's email policy because she's on email threads about it. And people at State are on the record about trying to get her to use a department email and Blackberry. And she obviously had some concerns about disclosure because there were emails related to government business that she withheld when she filtered out the "personal emails" before responding to the department's records request. Also, Comey said a lot of emails were deleted from her servers, but it appears that the vast majority of emails were retained going back to when the service was set up, which suggests that deleted emails were selectively deleted. In my opinion, the most plausible reason for the private server was to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act and give her the ability to sanitize her public record.

    To me, this email scandal brought back memories of Whitewater, where she had records shredded, and had her chief of staff seize Vince Foster's files after his death and hide them in her private quarters for a week. It's not like she's committing high crimes or anything, but I think she's sleazy. And I think she's paranoid, which causes her to do things that magnify the sleaze. Basically, Hillary Clinton is Richard Nixon II: same politics, same policies, same disregard for rules and laws that the little people have to follow, and same paranoia.

  6. #556
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    I've always tried to update my beliefs with new information & try to check them against data. I think it's why my position is almost entirely unrepresented in the US, center-right liberal cosmopolitan with a few decidedly social dem leanings. (So the Left-Right split doesn't work well with me. In the UK I'd pretty clearly be a LibDem. Hell if that party existed in the US, I'd probably run for office under its banner myself.) The most prominent representative in the US would be Fareed Zakaria, and it encourages me that his opinions are also very consciously data driven. But yeah, apparently no one or few else ever got the memo. Too bad for them.
    I'm also a fan of the Liberal Democrats.

    It started about a decade ago I read the Orange Book. When I was younger, I used to think of myself a Libertarian pragmatist, meaning I'm attracted to a lot of Libertarian principles but they are just goals to aspire to rather than rules to blindly follow. I always avoided Libertarian branding because (at least in the US) the term has become associated with knee-jerk anti-government fundamentalists who are IMHO more properly described as anarchists. So when I found the Orange Book, it was right up my alley. That book introduced me to the party, but I didn't realize the diversity of opinions regarding liberalism within the party until I started spending a lot of time in London and Southern England and following UK politics.

    These days, my view of what's best for liberty lean more towards progressive populism. I've come to view most third way political movements as wolves in sheep's clothing, windows dressing for the plutocracy. And yet the Lib Dems seem different. They're kind of a third way, but it's coming from principles rather than electioneering. So it's harder to be cynical about them.

  7. #557
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: cesspool
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Now just in the past four years the left's attitude towards Russia has gone from reverential to sheer hatred. Why?
    You really don't know? Really? You're lucky, because we here keep losing 3-4 servicemen every day in average, on our soil. For 2 years already. And all Russia's EU neighbourghs feel at least unease and lack of security because of Russia's behaviour, even though most of them are NATO members, we aren't that lucky. You don't care about this only coz you're far away and your soldiers don't die. And it's not just Putin, the whole nation is sick.
    Last edited by 242; 1st Aug 2016 at 16:23.

  8. #558
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2007
    Location: Russia
    Quote Originally Posted by 242 View Post
    And it's not just Putin, the whole nation is sick.
    Said the man whose country (Ukraine) has officially heroized Stepan Bandera, a nazi collaborator at WWII, whose organization is guilty in the horrible death of about 100'000 Pole civilians (see Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia). No, my friend, if there a whole nation is sick, then it would be yours.
    Last edited by MoroseTroll; 2nd Aug 2016 at 11:35. Reason: Typo

  9. #559
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    SLAV FIGHT!

  10. #560
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2013
    Is there a nation doctor in the house? We might have a couple of sick nations here.

  11. #561
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2000
    Location: Portreath Cornwall UK
    Unfit for President? From the current President? Is this the winning hand?

  12. #562
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    I think the kind of people who will consider voting for Trump are unlikely to be swayed by the words of a Kenyan-born Muslim socialist.

  13. #563
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I won't trust anything Hussein says until he releases his real birth certificate.

  14. #564
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Medlar View Post
    Unfit for President? From the current President? Is this the winning hand?
    Well, yes, obviously. Obama won two presidential elections and is more popular than ever, with ever improving demographics. Holding the "Obama coalition" is basically an automatic win. If HRC can manage it while, frankly, lacking Obama's rhetorical skills.

  15. #565
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Cooperating with liberal countries like those of Western Europe to mutually build each other & the world up is encouraged.
    Fuck off, we don't need your "cooperation" or your "liberalism". Or your Orwellian newspeak. What you call cooperation is just imperialism, and what you call liberalism is just slavery through consumerism. You're the most degenerate and depraved nation on this planet. Fat blobs moving about on electric wheelchairs who can't tell the difference between men and women, who sexualize children and buy their babies online because they can't make them anymore. Individualists who live in constant fear of one another, who murder their neighbours on a daily basis, and who have taken a currency as god. People like this should have no self-esteem, but not you. You're arrogant, loud, and obnoxious. What's worse, you're convinced that you're the good guys and that you're doing everyone a service by spreading your decadent way of life. Well you're not, and there's a reason why the whole world hates you and can't wait to see you drown in a pool made of your own vomit and excrement. I'm pretty sure Syria, Libya, and Irak could have done without your "cooperation". When "liberalism" leads to the complete annihilation of three (for the most part) stable and prosperous nations that should give you a clue as to its true nature. But no, it's the same as with the EU, if it doesn't work it's because there's not enough of it.

  16. #566
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: London / London / London
    oh manwe, I have such a funny image of you in my head now.

  17. #567
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Also, I swear to god but I think Tony honestly believes that there is this big political entity called The Left and they all get a weekly memo which informs them what to think / believe.
    Time to leave politics to people who understand what nuance and shades of grey are I think.
    No, not really. Like I said the term works fairly well as a catch-all to describe people who brand themselves a certain way. Plus there is remarkably little diversity of thinking, at least from American liberals. Nobody is more of a hivemind than Democrats.

    That said a lot of "leftist" organizations are remarkably organized. I mean FFS a lot of media organizations just got caught red-handed taking orders from the DNC.

    It's common fucking sense that the people in political movements talk to each other. Fox News and all the "talk show hosts" would frequently parrot the exact same talking points on the Republican side and we know that. On the Democrat side well.

    I'm sorry. It seems much more probably that this kind of thing isn't a coincidence than that it is, especially when it isn't a one time occurance. All of these were published within 48 hours of each other.



    Edit: We KNOW they talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

    I mean think about it. They move in the same social circles, went to the same Ivy League schools, go to the same press conferences......yet it's somehow ludicrous to think that they communicate and coordinate?

    How come it's called "networking" when business school graduates do it but it's an insane conspiracy theory to suggest that people in media who share the same ideology would do it?

    Scrap that

    Seems I'm not missing the point at all and you really are that dense. I'm against murder too, does this mean I'm pro-establishment? Your blind spot is in thinking that LGBT rights are somehow some kind of special extra rather than simply treating humans equally. If "The Establishment" is also into that, then that is one area where "The Establishment" doesn't bother me. I'm guessing they also like food and think swimming should be legal.
    No, you're either deliberately missing the point or you're a single issue dogmatist. I didn't just mention LGBT. I originally mentioned it in passing as part of a large group of elite backed policies.

    I listed numerous other examples as well. To recap: being for mass-migration, climate change legislation, nationalized healthcare, "high taxes on the rich", Gun Control.....etc.

    These are all positions that you have passionately argued in favor of, that also happen to be points that are heavily pushed by the elite establishment. It isn't just LGBT, it's literally EVERY Position you argue for that the corporate elite throws hundreds of millions of dollars at, in some cases billions.

    To the point about how "Everything I hate is establishment". No. In this instance I'm judging what is "establishment" by the dominant flow of money into either supporting or defeating various policy agendas.

    Anyway, what I originally wrote:

    My point is that when the policies you support are almost point for point the exact same policies that the elite want, you should rethink your assessment of yourself as being anti-establishment.
    How on earth did you construe that sentence to be referring only to "LGBT"? I think it was patently clear that I was referring to the net sum of your political beliefs which (correct me if I'm wrong) touch on a lot more subjects than just LGBT.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 2nd Aug 2016 at 17:13.

  18. #568
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzman View Post
    What in the hell? This is like you learned everything about the left from right wing ideologue panic merchants who bang on and on about "The Left" all the time.
    Anyone who knew the first thing - The First! - about progressives in the 20th century would know Stalinism caused massive divisions in the communists, never mind "The Left", and Leninism wasn't even some universally accepted thing (what with the Bolsheviks being a somewhat ironic moniker for the minority side of the Russian communist movement, initially).
    If there's one characteristic that you could probably ascribe to something called The Left it's that it has been riven with fractious infighting since the name was coined and can't agree on much at all.
    No. I learned this by reading their own writings, newspaper archives praising the Soviets, books talking about how remarkably efficient it was over there, etc, as well as some interviews with ex-soviets whose job it was to court American academics and journalists.

    If you want to study a really interesting period look into the McCarthy trials. There's a lot of information found since then (especially with the Venona cable leak) that blows the water out of the story most people are taught in school.

    Yes. I fully believe that there has been "infighting". That doesn't change that the dominant attitude was one of admiration for the Soviets for having successfully implemented a communist, atheist government. It's also the attitude that is best documented because the people who held that attitude were frequently ones who were well placed in venues that allowed them to spread their opinions.

  19. #569
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
    I admit that I don't fully know what metric you'd use to capture this properly, but if that metric didn't reveal that the democratic base is vastly more diverse than the republicans I'd eat my hat.

    As for the rest, you're off your rocker. "The left" in the US, UK, Australia, etc., has been operating on a liberal consensus for decades that most definitely does not have some secret admiration for Russia. Yes, "the left" also includes groups that like the idea of state planning. Because you know: it's a diverse bunch of people. I wish I had time to categorise the many diverse groups that make up the left, get representative samples of each group's writings, and show that you're nuts. But it would be a mammoth task.

  20. #570
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Nobody is more of a hivemind than Democrats.
    Apparently not at last week's DNC.

    No. I learned this by reading their own writings, newspaper archives praising the Soviets, books talking about how remarkably efficient it was over there, etc, as well as some interviews with ex-soviets whose job it was to court American academics and journalists.

    If you want to study a really interesting period look into the McCarthy trials. There's a lot of information found since then (especially with the Venona cable leak) that blows the water out of the story most people are taught in school.

    Yes. I fully believe that there has been "infighting". That doesn't change that the dominant attitude was one of admiration for the Soviets for having successfully implemented a communist, atheist government. It's also the attitude that is best documented because the people who held that attitude were frequently ones who were well placed in venues that allowed them to spread their opinions.
    There you go creating another straw boogeyman. Not only are the Democrats a hivemind, they're a pinko commie Soviet-worshipping hivemind.

    You're taking the views of a relatively small number of pro-Soviet voices in academia, peace movement, etc. and talking as if they were broadly applicable to "The Left" which you've equated with the Democratic party. That is so far from the truth it isn't funny. Most of the people who actually were/are pro-Soviet, e.g. Stephen Cohen, are hardly fans of the Democratic party.

    Also, Verona identified Soviet spies, it says nothing about prevailing attitudes on the left.

    And did you just try to legitimize the McCarthy trials? Unbelievable.

  21. #571
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    When are you people going to realize that Tony Tarantula is a fucking idiot, and arguing with him is like screaming at a wall filled with crazy spiders?

  22. #572
    Taking the Death Toll
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: ideally far away
    That Tony has been allowed to shitpost his subway vagrant ramblings without consequence all these years is just one reason why I don't really come here anymore.

  23. #573
    You can't just ban someone just for stating opinions and beliefs, even if they're perceived as being completely wacko.

    But if he was being abusive or harassing other users, well that would be a different story.

  24. #574
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Honestly, what I did was probably the more ban-worthy offense. My patience with this recent trend of hairbrained conspiracy theories driving political discourse might be starting to wear incredibly thin, but having a contrary opinion, no matter how crazy or unpopular, isn't worthy of punishment just because you don't agree with it.

    On a similar note, I love how the crazy factory has now turned its sights on Khizr Kahn for having the audacity of speaking out against trump during the DNC. My Facebook page is nothing but a wall of character assassinations based upon loose associations and hearsay. I particularly love how people are accusing the Democrats of using their tragedy to crassly "further their own agenda", as if the Republicans didn't have Pat Smith on stage screaming about how Hillary killed her baby boy not even a week before.

    But oh, look! Isn't it convenient how THE MSM OLOL ignored her plight, while choosing to focus entirely on Khan's tragedy. Just goes to show the inherent bias THE MEDIA OLOL has towards the Democrats, right? Why didn't she get equal airtime? Is her loss somehow less important than some random Muslim immigrants?

    ...well, it probably has something to do with the fact that a presidential candidate didn't openly insult her on live TV. You fucking dipshits. Jesus Christ. We wouldn't have heard another word about the Kahn's if Trump didn't spend about 4-5 days pumping the story personally with his special brand of idiocy.

    I think some of you people need to accept that actions and words have consequences. Having your own stupidity thrown in your face isn't a conspiracy against you.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 3rd Aug 2016 at 13:49.

  25. #575
    Taking the Death Toll
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: ideally far away
    Quote Originally Posted by Brethren View Post
    You can't just ban someone just for stating opinions and beliefs, even if they're perceived as being completely wacko.

    But if he was being abusive or harassing other users, well that would be a different story.
    Nice weasel language, but you just illustrated the problem. Tolerance of Tony's intolerant and completely whackadoodle views is promoting intolerance; more to the point, free speech doesn't extend to private entities and groups. There's no integrity in allowing Tony to continue posting here. It only validates him and gives him a platform for his endless mounds of unreadable bullshit. TTLG isn't a public space.

    Remember Sluggs? He got kicked out of Commchat. Over on Doomworld, where moderators actually moderate, people often get banned from Everything Else (Commchat equivalent) for less, and it makes the place a lot nicer. Or remember Draxil? Only posts every couple years, comes out of hiding to sound like a cartoon supervillain? That dude would've been sent to the losers subforum every time he posted if he was on Doomworld.

    (If it sounds like I'm praising Doomworld, I'm not. It's loaded with alt-right, Trump-loving cuckbots. I just like their moderation scheme better. Even if I'm currently losered myself.)

Page 23 of 540 FirstFirst ... 38131819202122232425262728333843485358636873123273523 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •