Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Again, you keep using Communism and Socialism interchangeably.  I looked at the platform for Ocasio-Cortez, most of it is pretty much a continuation of New Deal style policy.  I saw nothing about the liquidation of Kulaks, imposition of single party rule, or the collectivization of the means of production.  And please, don't assume that I support her entire platform.  Some of it sounds wildly impractical from a financial standpoint.  That said, I don't think she is the second coming of Stalin, nor is it fair to compare her to some of the extreme right nutjobs that have surfaced on the Republican ticket in non-competitive districts.

 

No, I'm not using them interchangeably. Many, if not most self-described Socialists are Communists, or very close. They'll even admit it if you talk to them long enough.

 

Ocasio-Cortez's platform has been whitewashed for the general and you know it. Look at what she has said she wants and believes, shit like "capitalism will end". That's not a Swedish socialist, that's full on Marxism.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

No, I'm not using them interchangeably. Many, if not most self-described Socialists are Communists, or very close. They'll even admit it if you talk to them long enough.

 

Ocasio-Cortez's platform has bern whitewashed for the general and you know it. Look at what she has said she wants and believes, shit like "capitalism will end". That's not a Swedish socialist, that's full on Marxism.

 

 

 

Honestly, I have not paid all that much attention to her until she was in the headlines. I'll take your word for it.  I really need to stop arguing here at get back to researching WWII French armor for my next video.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

researching WWII French armor for my next video.  

 

I’m pretty sure what you meant to say is: imported American armor :P 

 

tangental: will you also cover captured and modified vehicles like the Lorraine schlepper Marders (Sd.Kfz 135), S303/7(f) / U304(f) / P204(f) conversions, etc? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Ocasio-Cortez's platform has been whitewashed for the general and you know it. Look at what she has said she wants and believes, shit like "capitalism will end". That's not a Swedish socialist, that's full on Marxism.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I’m pretty sure what you meant to say is: imported American armor :P 

 

tangental: will you also cover captured and modified vehicles like the Lorraine schlepper Marders (Sd.Kfz 135), S303/7(f) / U304(f) / P204(f) conversions, etc? 

 

Probably not, they will get mentioned in the episodes about the vehicle they are based on.  Right now my current list of vehicles to cover is at about 90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Probably not, they will get mentioned in the episodes about the vehicle they are based on.  Right now my current list of vehicles to cover is at about 90.

 

Holy cow, I didn’t think the French had that many types of AFVs in the late 30s! 

 

Good luck on the vid :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lostwingman said:

 

The DNC and related groups burn money like nobodies business. I should consider getting into the printing business, sheesh.

 

Quite honestly, the impression I got is that the Democratic Party apparatus is cancerous.

Not "cancerous" in the internet-slang meaning of "something I don't like intensely" but cancerous in the sense that the individual subcomponents of the system have stopped working together for a common goal, and are now busy cannibalizing each other for resources so they can grow more and cannibalize more resources.  There seem to be a lot of "Democratic" political institutions that are concerned with making themselves seem indispensable so they can get more delicious money.  They are less concerned with the overall health and effectiveness of the party.  This is part of why the party as a whole does things that don't make very little apparent sense.  It was someone's personal cash cow, not part of a coordinated strategy.  If you look at how centralized control of the Democratic Party has disintegrated over the past ten years, it makes sense.

 

The Republican Party has the same problem, but to a lesser extent.  I suspect that the problem will become even smaller once Trump opens his coliseums for counterrevolutionary Trotskyites neocons.

Share this post


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

 

Holy cow, I didn’t think the French had that many types of AFVs in the late 30s! 

 

Good luck on the vid :) 

I meant 90 for the whole war, not just France.  This is my episode list for the 1940 French campaign.  As you can see, I have left out some of the less common French tanks.

 

FT 17
R 35
H 35
FCM 36
Char D1,2 and 3
Char B1 bis
Somua S 35
Panzer 35 & 38
Panzer III
Panzer IV
British Light tank Mk I-VI
Mk I (A9) & Mk II (A10)
Mk III (A13) & Mk IV (A13 Mk II)
Matilda I
Matilda II

Stug III (short barrel)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Quite honestly, the impression I got is that the Democratic Party apparatus is cancerous.

Not "cancerous" in the internet-slang meaning of "something I don't like intensely" but cancerous in the sense that the individual subcomponents of the system have stopped working together for a common goal, and are now busy cannibalizing each other for resources so they can grow more and cannibalize more resources.  There seem to be a lot of "Democratic" political institutions that are concerned with making themselves seem indispensable so they can get more delicious money.  They are less concerned with the overall health and effectiveness of the party.  This is part of why the party as a whole does things that don't make very little apparent sense.  It was someone's personal cash cow, not part of a coordinated strategy.  If you look at how centralized control of the Democratic Party has disintegrated over the past ten years, it makes sense.

 

The Republican Party has the same problem, but to a lesser extent.  I suspect that the problem will become even smaller once Trump opens his coliseums for counterrevolutionary Trotskyites neocons.

 

Based on my own experiences this description matches most organizations in general.  I can think of several departments and people at my old workplace who nobody knew what they did or why they were there, but somehow, they were considered important.  Or at least thought they were.  Anyhow, it was pretty apparent from the last election that the Democratic party is not a well run machine.  The fact that it represents a fairly large range of demographics and interest groups probably does not help either.  Also, normal people don't choose a career in politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Quite honestly, the impression I got is that the Democratic Party apparatus is cancerous.

Not "cancerous" in the internet-slang meaning of "something I don't like intensely" but cancerous in the sense that the individual subcomponents of the system have stopped working together for a common goal, and are now busy cannibalizing each other for resources so they can grow more and cannibalize more resources.  There seem to be a lot of "Democratic" political institutions that are concerned with making themselves seem indispensable so they can get more delicious money.  They are less concerned with the overall health and effectiveness of the party.  This is part of why the party as a whole does things that don't make very little apparent sense.  It was someone's personal cash cow, not part of a coordinated strategy.  If you look at how centralized control of the Democratic Party has disintegrated over the past ten years, it makes sense.

 

The Republican Party has the same problem, but to a lesser extent.  I suspect that the problem will become even smaller once Trump opens his coliseums for counterrevolutionary Trotskyites neocons.

 

Yeah, this is why every article running about YoU wOnT bELiEvE tHE YoUNg wOmEN ChAlLEngINg RePuBliCAN InCUMbeNtS iN thE sOUTh just makes me grin knowing the DNC is just digging the hole deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

/.../

On other foreign policy issues, he tore up the Iran deal, then said he would be willing to talk to the Iranians.  Predictably, the Iranians were not in any hurry to talk to a leader who just arbitrarily withdrew from a treaty signed only a few years ago.  By reimposing sanctions on Iran, Trump has created another dilemma  regarding European relations, who have not disavowed the Iran deal. 

/.../

Note on Iran. Because of sanctions are being re-initiated, current president and his pro-western/normalisation policy is viewed as "failed" in Iran.

https://imp-navigator.livejournal.com/750056.html

 

Quote

   Against the backdrop of discontent with the government of President Ruhani, former President Ahmadinejad, who enjoyed so much visible support among the poor, seems to now become even more popular among them. Today, by the way, he called on Rukhani to resign, and this is how he was met by supporters in the provinces over the past few weeks.

1848035_1000.jpg

 

Spoiler

1847218_1000.jpg

 

1847482_1000.jpg

 

1848241_1000.jpg

 

Quote

   P.S. President Ruhani and the parliament have problems, on August 8, the deputies expressed distrust and accordingly dismissed the Minister of Cooperation, Labor and Social Security of Iran Ali Rabai. And in the coming weeks, the president himself must appear before the parliament and give explanations to the deputies about the problems in the country's economy. Potentially, this may be the first step to remove him from office, but such development still seems unlikely. However, maybe Ruhani will have to donate somebody from his cabinet ...

 

 

5 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

/.../

  As to US - Russian relations, Trump went to meet with Putin in Helsinki, and the results were, shall we say, a little odd...

/.../

Results are more sanctions, now targeting oil industry and some tech products that are needed for it but not produced in Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Based on my own experiences this description matches most organizations in general.  I can think of several departments and people at my old workplace who nobody knew what they did or why they were there, but somehow, they were considered important.  Or at least thought they were.  Anyhow, it was pretty apparent from the last election that the Democratic party is not a well run machine.  The fact that it represents a fairly large range of demographics and interest groups probably does not help either.  Also, normal people don't choose a career in politics. 

 

Right - most organizations, especially large and old ones - have this same issue. Too many middlemen, all trying to justify their existence so they don't get kicked out. The contrast I would make is that the DNC is in the terminal, late stages of this. It's Nazi Germany in 1944, whereas the Republican Party is more like Nazi Germany in 1934.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't help the the litmus test for moving up the Democratic political machine (and almost certainly the republican one too) is how much money you can raise.

 

My god I hate Julian Castro. Guy is so slimy and fake he bleeds playdoh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which makes 2016 such a watershed moment in that Trump won by being a B-list celebrity who had the savvy to actually run on a platform that the party base has been advocating, using only Twitter and rallies paid for by #MAGA hats. He made completely redundant and obsolete the school of political remoras and sea lice which attach themselves to the fundraising leviathon that is a Presidential campaign, hoping to bring in six and seven figures for doing polling or focus groups or selling their donor lists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also who needs to spend billions to win an election when it has been shown that $100,000 in Facebook ads and an office building full of Slavs squatting behind a computer screen with troll accounts can hack an entire election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Yes, I to think it's a shame the Republican party threw away what remained of its values and dignity.  Oh wait,  you were talking about the Democrats?

1

Sadly you seem far more concerned about supposed problems with the Republicans when they are not threatening any of our fundamental rights, but poo-poo the actions of the Democrats like they are no big deal, while they make moves attacking the rights of US Citizens.  Since I'm not a republican or democrat, I'll go after either party when they attack my rights, and contrary to the lefty and media spin, the only party doing that right now is the Democrat party. I've said it before, I'll say it again, politicians are scumbags, they always have been and always will be, both sides, and they should be watched and not trusted, and I don't give a shit if they can fake looking like nice people. They can run around in clown makeup if they actually get things done.  

 

 

10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

anyhow, enough snark.


You say the economy is doing great.  Yes, for corporations, who got the lions share of the tax cut.  Wages for working people are stagnant, and the average US worker has nothing in savings.  This is not a new trend, but Trump's "great" economy has done nothing to reverse this trend.  And of course, while the corporate tax cuts are permanent, the ones for individuals end in ten years.  I figure that's about when they will use the excuse that there is a huge hole in the federal budget (due to the Bush Jr and Trump tax cuts) to start seriously cutting entitlements.  So, kiss your social security and medicaid goodbye by the time any of us need it.

2

 

That's a lot of text just to spew the standard Pelosi/media line, I am almost surprised to you didn't call the cuts crumbs.   Also, it's not just me, it's anyone with eyes, who's willing to look around. Even in California, people are spending money again. We've done more pool upgrades for people this year than in the last 5 by a huge margin, and it's industry-wide. The funniest part is how far lefties got to say it's not real, or just for the rich when Obama achieved nothing like it. FACT, the American people, and economy are doing better under Trump than Obama.  You can try and be like MSNBC and CNN to spin it as a negative, but its still, better than Obama ever achieved.  

 

10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

As to NATO, please stop using Trumps deliberately misleading rhetoric.  No one "pays" anything.  The issue is whether or not member states are "spending" enough on defense, not "paying" money to anyone.  The 2% goal is not something Trump created, it actually is a long standing goal established by previous administrations.  Trump's main "accomplishment" regarding NATO has been to cause our allies to have serious doubts as to the US willingness to actually Article 5 of the NATO treaty.  

2

 

I thought you said no more snark, or are you really trying to say, you don't understand, when Trump says "Fair Share", he means paying the obligatory amount of money required by the treaty, on National Defense, and you know damn well they were not doing this, and you know damn well their readiness was terrible. You knew all this, yet you still put up that crap, stolen right from CNN BS?  

 

Once again, the facts are, Trump, got NATO moving on this when previous admins failed. 

 

If the US should spend blood on a bunch of shitholes eastern European countries who have no business being in NATO at all is a whole other debate, and something NO use Citizen was asked about. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

On other foreign policy issues, he tore up the Iran deal, then said he would be willing to talk to the Iranians.  Predictably, the Iranians were not in any hurry to talk to a leader who just arbitrarily withdrew from a treaty signed only a few years ago.  By reimposing sanctions on Iran, Trump has created another dilemma  regarding European relations, who have not disavowed the Iran deal. 

1

 

 

The shity Iran deal that had them still working on a NUKE, while spreading Islamic Terror throughout the middle east, killing that was a plus and a campaign promise, or was that the Paris deal, also a shit deal.   Of course,  you could just trust the Iranians when they claim they were not, in spite of evidence to the contrary. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

So far, negotiations with North Korea have gotten the return of US soldier remains, but as far as actual progress on the dismantling of NK's nuclear capability, recent reports claim that NK research and development is continuing.  Actually, Mike Pompeo stated it himself last month.  As to US - Russian relations, Trump went to meet with Putin in Helsinki, and the results were, shall we say, a little odd...

 

 

The deal is not done, but Trump, as meager as it is, has still gotten more out of North Korea than Obama, or Bush, and without paying a dime.    So again, I stated a fact, you couldn't just concede. Yet, its a fact, the media does the same thing, and their credibility is at an all-time low, and the rights hate of the press predates Trump, so don't try and play that silly card. At worst, all we get is the dead soldiers, and things go back to the way there were, at best we get something better. How is that a bad thing?   

 

10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

One the international economic front, he seems to think tariffs are the magic bullet.  Frankly, it's still probably too soon to tell exactly what impact these tariffs will have, although Trump already has had to bribe US farmers with $12 billion dollars to make up for their tariff related losses.  If we are lucky, prices on consumer goods will not go up too dramatically as this trade war escalates.

 

 

 

So, you don't understand Trump is trying to use tariffs on countries that unfairly tariff our goods to get a better deal for the US companies, and we have nothing like free trade in reality?  If you understand this, why is it a bad thing?

 

10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

As to his skill as an executive leader, the Trump white house has been an absolute mess.  Never before have we seen an administration with such a quick turnover of high ranking positions.  Most of his cabinet heads seemed to have been picked based on their antipathy for the department they are supposed to head.  His first EPA choice, Scott Pruitt, ended up in over a dozen ethics investigations.  Zinke, the head of interior, has had a few ethical issues of his own.  Betsy Devos, sec of Ed, went in front of congress and delivered one of the most embarrassing performances by a cabinet head ever.  Tom Price, of Health and Human services had to resign over misuse of department money for travel.  Ben Carson seems to like very expensive office furniture.  

5

 

What president has been free of Cabinet officials doing stupid/embarrassing things?  We only hear about the Trump ones because the media turns minor things, into news stories and then makes shit up, like how many scoops of ice cream Trump gets.  Were the optics of the Obama Whitehouse 'better'? Maybe, if you didn't bother to dig a little, the mainstream media litterally worshiped Obama and continually avoided covering things that embarrassed him. I guess if all you care is appearances admin politicized everything and did real damage to the nation. Unless you think a corrupt and incompetent FBI and Justice department are good things and it's one or the other or maybe both at this point, and it is really not deniable, there is all the evidence you would ever need in the IG report.  

 

Trumps Chaotic Whitehouse may look bad to people who can't see past the crap the mainstream media insists on covering or the blatant lies they tell using unnamed sources, people who like results can't ignore the fact things are better under Trump, well you can't ignore it if you have an ounce of objectivity on Trump. 

 

10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

As far as Trump's primary campaign promises, most are still unfulfilled. 

 

The Wall?  Congress has not been able to come up with a new immigration bill, let alone funding for the wall.  The idea that Mexico will pay for the wall seems to have been quietly abandoned.  The only accomplishment by Trump on immigration so far has been to put children in cages. 

 

His other big promise, to repeal and replace Obamacare with something better has not materialized either.  He's managed to cripple the AHCA to a certain extent, but the law still stands, and it is doubtful congress will take up the issue of repeal any time soon. 

1

 

Yeah Sadly he was stuck with the Obama admins Cage policy.   And of course you won't give the man credit for actually trying to push these things through, and I'm sure you know the reasons why they failed, but lack the objectivity to be honest about it.  

 

 

10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

And then there is the promise to "drain the swamp", whatever that means exactly.  If it means getting rid of corruption, perhaps he should have started with his own campaign?  Currently, we have Trump's former campaign manager on trail, the star witness being Trump's former deputy campaign manager.  Both are accused of serious financial crimes. His commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has been accused of grifting $120 million dollars.  His son and son in law are prime targets for the Mueller probe, and Trump himself has admitted that the two willing attended a meeting during the campaign with the goal of securing damaging information about Trump's opponent from agents of a foreign government.  Meanwhile, a different legal case is proceeding regarding Trump's potential violations of the emoluments clause.  Given that Trump refused to disclose his tax returns to the American public, or to effectively distance himself from his business empire while president, the notion that he is financially benefiting from his elected office is not all that far-fetched. 

3

 

Well, since you ignored/excused the problems with the justice department and FBI in the past, I don't think you actually want to know what the deep state is, or the swamp, or any of the actual deep problems with lifelong government employees having power over the lives of Americans, and the problems that can cause in a democracy.  I also think its funny lefties think someone who is already stupidly rich, would try and get rich by cheating the American people, while every media outlet in the in the nation, as incompetent as they are, is watching. I suppose it's no more stupid than the left's insistence on passing laws, to stop criminals from doing things, by taking the rights of non-criminals away, under the assumption, that the new anti-freedom law will be the one those criminals decide to obey. 

 

There are so many problems with the Meuler probe, that it stands no chance of actually getting Trump, see that's the problem with having a corrupt justice department and FBI, they mess shit up and it,  and ruin their own credibility.  We could get into this, but in the past, you seemed really apt to dismiss problems with the FBI and Justice Dept as Trump/republican BS attacking our law enforcement agencies. You might want to read up on some the subject, and aviod lefty sources, maybe start with the IG Report before you dive in. 

 

I will say this though, at least under Trump, there is a chance the justice department might go after government overreach and corruption when there was no chance of that taking place at all under Obama.  Somehow investigating government curruption is now a bad thing under Trump though!

 

10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Meanwhile, Trump's approval ratings have stayed fairly flat, hovering in the 40-45 % range.  The republican establishment is scared as hell of November, knowing that Trump has alienated all but his base.  Just look at all the high profile republicans who decided to retire to "spend more time with their families."  Most of what Trump has accomplished so far has been done the same way his predecessor did it, with executive orders.  And as we have seen, executive orders are not nearly as long lasting or as durable as actual laws.  If Trump loses the congress in November, you can be guaranteed that the next two years of his presidency will be even less productive. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

Yeah, that depends on when you look at the poles and what poles, and Obama wasn't much more popular when he was in office, and the media was kissing his ass. If you had any objectivity about Trump, you might wonder if all the unfair media coverage of Trump might be having an effect on the polling, and you'd also note it has spike up into the Obama range several times,  but we're back to your lack of objectity.  Yeah and spin "high profile" Republicans, who the base hates because they sell out on immigration, as a bad thing, while your party has leadership older than the average AARP senior member. Maybe the left losing some of its prominent Democrats would be a good thing too unless you like have Nancy P as your spokesmummy...  

 

 

I'm not actually sure why you do participate in these discussions.  Your mind is closed, you said it yourself,  to paraphrase, nothing could ever convince you Trump isn't bad since no objective fact can change your mind. That means you have no objectivity, why bother?  

 

And don't try and act like we're all mindless Trump drones when we don't agree with your mostly mainstream media hate-driven opinions on Trump, for me, I will drop support for Trump when he goes after the first and second Amendments like the left in this country has. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I'm not actually sure why you do participate in these discussions.  Your mind is closed, you said it yourself,  to paraphrase, nothing could ever convince you Trump isn't bad since no objective fact can change your mind. That means you have no objectivity, why bother? 

 

 

Maybe because i am trying to represent an alternate viewpoint here?  And trust me, my opinions on the matter are not outliers, but shared by at least half the population.  I mean, if you want this place to be an echo chamber, I can limit my posting to the AFV thread.

 

Share this post


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

 

Maybe because i am trying to represent an alternate viewpoint here?  And trust me, my opinions on the matter are not outliers, but shared by at least half the population.  I mean, if you want this place to be an echo chamber, I can limit my posting to the AFV thread.

 

 

No one is trying to silence you. Post all you want. 

 

Your voice, in this thread, would have more value, if you made an effort to actually have some objectivity about Trump. You basically spew the same crap we get from MSNBC and CNN and every other mainstream outlet. Most of us have moved on from those sources of news. I'm not asking you to like the man, I'm not asking you to like his policies, I'm asking you to step back, and take an actual objective look at the good and bad things the man has done, and accept, he isn't the devil,  and offer actual objective arguments to whats going on. Objectivity in all things, achievable or not should really be the goal of reasonable human beings. 

 

 

I think you may also want to take a serious deep dive into the direction the Democrats have gone, far more than a fringe portion of the Democrat Party do not want you to have a voice in the party, because you are a white male. It doesn't matter that you're on their side, or unemployed, or a lifelong Democrat, or a nice guy, you as a white male have nothing a value to offer the people like Cortez, you are a white patriarchal male, one of the current big enemies of the left. If the young people and sell out mainstreamers in your party are spouting this, and your not worried about it, you are not paying enough attention.  Maybe the only value you get out of this is you can come back and say I'm full of shit, no Democrats are calling for hate speech laws or draconian gun control measures, or any other insane stuff.  Maybe you see some things you don't like. Hell, I know a hell of a lot of Bernie supporters here in Marin County who are pretty damn mad at the Democrat party for fucking Bernie over,  and I'd be pretty worried about the blatant acceptance and lying about Luis Farakan, and the Democrats increasingly being openly anti Semitic too, but that's just me.  My point on why you should look at this is because the Democratic party is partly responsible for Trump being in office, and more so than anything the Russians did. Most of it is on Hillary for being a garbage human, but her party didn't help. 

 

Without objectivity, your posts come off as the same type of ravings as a wehraboo clinging to Barkman's corner, or a Sherman hater insisting Ronsons were a thing. 

 

 

Also, I was not sober while posting this, but, as of right now, I stand by it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Walter_Sobchak, I think it's important to understand that many conservative and poor Americans felt completely left out of both parties. The Democrats were no longer the party of the working man and the poor (which they never really were - but the good branding had finally worn off), but clearly revealed as a party of elites feeding their own interests at the expense of the country and especially the middle class. Not only did (and does) the Democratic and left-wing chatter center around concepts that feel alien to blue collar Americans, but any attempt at dissent or even discussion would quickly result in the label of "racist" or "Nazi" being slapped onto the dissenter. Any blue collar worker who piped up with beliefs as innocent as that they believe legal immigration is a good thing, but they'd like the US to stay demographically similar to what it is now would find themselves branded with labels they had worked hard for years to escape. Prior to the Obama years, most rural Americans took tolerance seriously, even if they didn't understand it entirely. But now, despite all that, they were cast out anyway.

Their treatment by Republicans was not much better, either. The GOP might as well have been a clone of the DNC, but with less power, less social capital, and less ability to win elections. This was such common knowledge that there were even South Park episodes about it. McCain was the final capstone of this long-time project to "liberalify" the GOP, as before the campaign he had been considered a Democrat in all but name by virtually everyone. No surprise that McCain walked away with a halfhearted turnout and a second place sticker. Romney was more of the same!

 

Trump's appeal lies in his destructive power. Trump vexes the DNC and cucks the GOP, both of whom left his base behind long ago. Trump talks a good game on foreign policy, bureaucratic reform, immigration, etc., which is frankly more than any recent previous candidate ever did. Trump also acts like he likes being around the salt of the earth, a far cry from Obama's barely-concealed Ivy-league contempt of them. Precisely because he's a wrecking ball who is shaking things up, many people aren't taking anything for granted anymore and that brings them hope. Because everything was that bad before. Our foreign policy was insane. Our immigration policy was retarded. Our bureaucracy was out of control. People knew all this for a long time but the existing structure had calcified so much that nothing could be done about any of it. Maybe it's different now, maybe Trump will break or has broken enough stuff that some real progress can be made. I dunno that I have that much hope, but hope is there for a lot of people, and no amount of off-color tweets will change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Omarosa won't take the $15,000 a month deal to stop bad mouthing Trump, I'll take it! I mean, I have principles and all, but $15000 a month?  That might convince me real quick to stop shit posting about Trump and say "no comment" real fast.

Share this post


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

If Omarosa won't take the $15,000 a month deal to stop bad mouthing Trump, I'll take it! I mean, I have principles and all, but $15000 a month?  That might convince me real quick to stop shit posting about Trump and say "no comment" real fast.

 

Quote

In the recording, Kelly purportedly calls for Manigault-Newman's "friendly departure" from the administration without any "difficulty in the future relative to your reputation." According to the tape, Kelly continued by saying that things could get "ugly" for her, and that she was "open to some legal action" for conduct that would merit a court martial if she were in the military.

 

Conduct such as, perhaps, discreetly recording conversations in the White House?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cnn is currently making a big deal about how the white supremacists were outnumbered by the protestors at some rally. 

 

Well no shit they were. There's maaaaybe  a couple thousand people in the KKK these days. They are the biggest nonissue ever but the left treats them like some sort of seething illuminati of hatred.

 

Antifa thugs beat people within inches of their lives, but a guy cosplaying as a ghost and yells something about racial superiority is somehow a more grave threat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
    • By Khand-e
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35333647
       
      Like I said a couple days ago actually, I said I thought it was very likely that Ma Ying-Jeou would lose the next election as he and his administration are very unpopular, and I guess it turned out to be true, also, aside from being the first female president, She's also the second candidate to win under the Democratic Progressive Party as opposed to the more traditonal Kuomintang which has held it for 5 (arguably 6) terms. and her party has also won a majority in the legislative Yuan, which is actually a pretty significant swing.
    • By Jeeps_Guns_Tanks
      I thought it was disgraceful we had a thread on Russian race cars, and other cars, but not one on American muscle cars and race cars, IE the best cars. 
       
      Over the weekend I'll put a little write up on the GTO and why it kicked off the musclecar, and why the Mustang was an overrated econo box for girls until the 67 model, more akin to a nova then a truly great car like a Pontiac GTO. 
       
      UPDATE:
      My thoughts on why the muscle car era was teh awesome.
       
      The reason 64 to 73 was one of the most interesting era for American cars, is they went a little nuts on how much power they started putting into cars, and all the GM brands for the most part still had their own engine types.
       
      The birth of the muscle car era started in 1964 when John Delorean, Jim Wangers and Pete Estes snuck the GTO option on the 64 mid-size Pontiac Tempest/Lemans platform that was based on GM A-Body platform. There were a few reasons it had to be snuck in, all mainly the fault of GM head executives being stodge old fogies. They had come up with two policies that caused boring cars. The first was their decision to pull out of any GM sponsored racing and the ban on developing performance parts. They also had a ban on putting motors bigger than 330 cubic inches in mid-size cars.
      The sad thing is GM had a thriving race scene and a set of dealers and race teams using their products. Pontiac and Chevrolet in particular had really bumped up their market share through their winning race teams. They were doing crazy stuff like Swiss cheesing frames, producing aluminum front ends (hoods, fenders, bumpers), and producing multi carb manifolds and there’s more I’m sure I’m forgetting. Then BAM, in the span of weeks GM killed it all off in 63.
        
      The heart of GTO option on the Lemans was the 389 cubic inch V8 used in Pontiac full size cars. The V8 was rated a 325 horsepower. The biggest V8 the car came with normally was the 326. The GTO option also included the choice of a close ratio four speed Muncie transmission, and heavy duty suspension and brakes. It could also include Pontiacs Safe-T-track limited slip differential with gear ratio choices of 3.23, 3.55, 3.90, 4.10, and if I recall right, 4.56.  The name was strait up ripped off from Ferrari, by Delorean. You could also order the package with triple carburetors, also known as tri-power, and it upped the engines horsepower to 335.
       
       
      GM and Pontiac found out about it, but Wangers had gone out and showed the car to some big dealers in the Detroit area and they already had big orders so GM corporate, and Pontiac let it be produced, the general manager told Delorean he would have the last laugh because there was no way they could even sell the 5000 that had been authorized, and Pontiac would have to eat the loss on inventory they couldn't sell, and it would be his ass. It sold more than 32,000 units, as a really un advertised option, so Delorean and Estes won the day, and the ban on big engines in mid size cars was lifted, and the GTO became its own model, still based on the Lemans/tempest platform,  but with no small engine choices.
       
      The other GM brands caught up with their own special models in 1965, Chevrolet with the SS 396 Chevelle, Oldsmobile with the 442, and Buick with the GS. GM still put a size restriction on motors and their A-Body mid-size models, but it was now 400 cubic inches, and all the brands had motors that could be grown well past this and already had been and were used in the full-size car lines.  Even this restriction would be pulled in 1970 because other major brands were stuffing huge motors in mid and even the newer smaller cars and GM was losing out.
       
      Ford and Chrysler and even AMC didn't just sit back and watch GM reap the reward, Ford had come out with their ‘Pony’ car the Mustang, in 1964, and it was also a huge success, but it was no performance car, even with the top of the line V8 option, a GTO would eat it alive, handing and acceleration wise.  Ford also had mid-size cars with large V8 options, but none that had been packaged like the GTO and they were light on good large V8s in the early 60s, plus their mid-size cars were ugly as hell.  The Mustang would grow into its own later in the 60s, in particular, when Carol Shelby started playing with them. They never had a great mid-size muscle car that wasn't ugly though.
       
      Chrysler had cars that could be considered muscle cars, but before 68 they were all so ugly, no one but weirdos drove them. They did have some very powerful engine combos, and they really hit the scene hard with the introduction of the cheap as hell but big engine powered Plymouth Road-Runner in 1968, you could buy a very fast Road-Runner for a lot less than you could even a base model GTO.  For a classier Chrysler they had their Plymouth GTX line, and Dodge had their beautiful Charger. The Cuda got an update in 1970, so it wasn’t really really ugly anymore, and the same platform was used to give Dodge the Challenger.  These cars fit more into the pony car scheme though. The main point is Chrysler produced ugly cars until 1968.
       
      GM would jump into the pony car scene in 1967 with the introduction of the first gen F-body. Chevrolet got the Camaro, and Pontiac got the Firebird. These cars were introduced with engine options up to 400 cubic inches, though, when they got a 396, or 400, they were slightly detuned so the mid-size cars still had an ‘advantage’, there was just a little tab that restricted the secondaries on the quadrajet carb.
       
      The whole thing came crashing down and by 1973, the muscle car was all but dead, and the US car industry was in a slump it would not recover from until the late 80s, also when the muscle car returned in a weird way with the Buick Gran National. While it lasted the muscle-car era produced some iconic cars, and some very rare but interesting ones. Most of them looked pretty damn cool though, and by now, they are very rare to see as daily driven cars. They exist; I pass a 68 SS Camaro all the time. Now even a base model muscle car or pony car that's rusted all to hell can be more then 8 to 10 grand, and you will spend triple that making it into a nice car.
       
      1970 was probably the peak year, and some very powerful cars came out that year and that year only. Chevrolet offered the SS Chevelle with the LS6 454, pumping out 450 HP. Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac all had very high horsepower 455 cubic inch V8s in the GSX, 442, and GTO models. Government safety restrictions, smog restrictions that required a lot of crap to be added to the engines, and high insurance prices all worked to kill these cars, and the final straw was the gas crisis.  The US Auto industry was a barren waste land unless you liked trucks, until about 1986.
       
      The cars never lost popularity though, but their worth has fluctuated a lot. You could buy just about anything in the late 70s and early 80s, and you could gate rare stuff a low prices, but by the late 80s the collectors had started getting into muscle cars and the prices went crazy. No, unless you want to spend a lot of money, you’re not going to be driving around a classic car from that era. On the upside, the aftermarket parts scene has gotten so extensive, you can build a 1968 Camaro, or 1970 Chevelle almost from scratch, since the body shell and just about all the body panels are being produced. You’re looking at about 14 grand just for the body shell of a 1970 Chevelle, from there you looking at a huge chunk of change to build it all the way, but it could be done. I suspect they are used to put a very rare, but totaled cars back into shape.
       
      It’s nice to be helping with the restoration of one of these cars, without being tied to the cost. I can have fun taking it apart, and putting it back together without worrying about how I was going to fund it. I also have more tools for working on cars than my father in law, and know more about GM cars, so I’m appreciated, and that’s nice. I just with the owner was willing to upgrade the thing a little, you can really go a long way to making an old muscle car handle and stop well, and be more reliable and safe with upgrades not much more than rebuilding everything dead stock, and putting upgraded suspension on a otherwise numbers matching car really doesn't hurt the value, especially if you put all the stock shit in boxes and save it. I’m not paying for it though so it is of course his call, and putting it back together stock is easier in most cases. I really wish it was a 68 GTO because, man I still know those cars, and every time we run into some stupid Chevy thing, I’m like, man, Pontiacs are so  much better, and I get dirty looks.  BUT THEY ARE!!!
       
      Anyway, I said I would write something up, and there it is. 
       
       
       
      Hopefully we have a few guys in here who dig on American Iron and will post about the cars they loved, and yes, I mean in that way,

×