Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

Why is it that you make shitposts in non-shitpost threads and expect to not get downvoted?

At the very least, you could keep the gets out of mostly-serious threads.

casually reposting this info

Jeb campaign’s Chief Operating Officer has quit, making her the highest ranking official to leave the campaign after the rollbacks and cuts a few weeks ago. She was not fired, she quit.

{ "I've got no comment. I've just got to go," the Wall Street Journal quoted Christine Ciccone as saying, while the Bush campaign expressed gratitude for her service. }

Jeb insists he's fine, but I'm calling it now: he's going down, and soon. He's lackluster and flailing badly. Except by a miracle turn-around, he's doomed.

Trump website updates with another specific policy outline for Veterans Affairs reforms.

Oh, snap.

Reading the debate transcript of what happened, and reading what other news outlets have said regarding this, I've concluded that the candidates were openly rude to the moderators, openly complained about the moderators instead of answering the questions at times, and the news then spun it so the candidates were the victims of media oppression. #MediaLivesMatter

Several times candidates were ridiculous about avoiding questions. However, questions like if you're running a comic book version of a presidential race (one of the first, if not the first question asked) are absolutely rude and unacceptable at a presidential debate. They, according to the RNC, didn't fulfill several promises they made. And lastly, did you see the guy on the very right? It's like no matter what he says or does it's always angry. I'd pull a second debate too if the first was like that.

The first question asked, instead of opening statements, was "what is your weakness". Also interrupted and cut short one of the best back and forths of the night on a key issue to ask about… fantasy football.

They've given opening statements at other debates and they had a limited amount of time for multiple candidates, so I understand why they did that. Asking what their weakness is is a fair question, and the ordering of when the question is asked doesn't matter. For them to be uncomfortable with answering what their weakness is displays an undertone of pride, that I've started to notice from the candidates in general. They asked if Fantasy Football is gambling, and though Fantasy Football is a stupid game it really is gambling. You pick people based on states like the odds for certain cards appearing in Poker and then gamble accordingly. Then the other candidates went on about fantasy football being a stupid question, and that's why people were more focused on it: because other candidates proceeded to comment on it instead of maturely focusing on what they're asked. It wouldn't, have even been an issue, if the candidates had politely not commented on if they like the questions or not like children, and instead answered like fucking adults and moved on. Like a bunch of Jim Webbs all complaining about not getting enough time instead of proving to the audience they're worth the time. Judging by the question-dodging by means of prideful moderator-bashing, I'd say the candidates who acted this way are definitely, not worth ANYONE's time.

Believe it or not, when we watch a presidential debate, we want to hear what the candidates think about war, domestic spying, our national debt, that stuff. Not the very minor issue of fantasy football.
The question-dodging was wrong, but it wasn't nearly as wrong as how the moderators behaved.
Lastly, the moderators get to decide who gets the most time. As we've seen consistently, they're very discriminatory about this – the frontrunners get the most time while others get less. You can't "prove" you're worth the time, you have to be one of the most popular.

I've said it several times before, but I'm just seeing more reason to believe it now – Jeb Bush is struggling pretty badly. I've given my email to most presidential candidates. I have received six emails back, but none about the reason I gave it to them. They were all from two candidates- Trump and Bush. Here's the funny thing: only one was from Trump, and four of the five from Bush were him begging for money. I think it says something when he's the only candidate out of those I emailed whose team will obsessively send me emails begging for money. Dude, answer my question, and then I'll consider donating to your campaign.

You're emailing campaigns, not candidates. If you're not getting an auto response you're getting a campaign volunteer or low paid intern. Now you're on at least Bush's autospam list.

Speaking of, he has officially rebooted his campaign five times now, going through different slogans and key talking points. Can't wait for the establishment reaction when he goes down for good.

Rubio said in an interview he would leave Obama's first Executive Amnesty (DREAMers/deferred action) in place until it's permanently legislated, which would not only give them voting rights but the ability to import their entire family and get them legally set up on government welfare. The DREAM Act has been repeatedly shot down in Congress every time it has been brought up.

& we have new work from Mark Dice! Watch, as Hillary voters are told Hillary supports bringing Sharia Law into America and are asked if they support her stance.

It never gets old.

Lawrence Lessig is out
literally who?

A few were "info@[candidatename]" so I assumed there was a chance I could get a response, and several of the others had a category for asking questions about the candidates positions.
His latest "reboot" involved the slogan "Jeb Can Fix It", which of course has been put to hashtag and prompty misused and made fun of. There are allegations of fixing the election of his brother, comparisons to the kid's show Handy Mandy, and other things like that. Politicians just need to stop making things hashtagable.
@Mausmann Exactly my response when I heard he was out. So we're down to O'Malley (Unless Clinton gets arrested for whatever reason, gets gravely ill, or dies, he has no chance), Sanders, Clinton, and then the beautiful mess we call the Republican nominees.

TRY NOT TO FALL OVER DEAD EVERYONE, but the mainstream media is finally admitting that Hispanics like Trump.

{ “Most Hispanics here in East Texas are here legally, they vote, and they are hard-line opponents of illegal immigration,” said Mr. Sanders, a top adviser in Democrat Tony Sanchez’s 2002 campaign to unseat then-Gov. Rick Perry. “The only one they want is Trump -- not Hillary, not Bernie. That’s the conundrum for Democrats.”

Whether Mr. Trump is saying he loves Hispanics or vowing to deport all 11 million or so illegal immigrants, it’s equally music to the ears of many Hispanic voters.

“I don’t care if he likes me or not as a Hispanic or Latino, as long he creates the jobs he promised,” said Carlo Maffatt, a Mexican immigrant who lives in Las Vegas and who did political liaison work in the Hispanic community for Republicans during the 2012 presidential election. “He is never going to take me out for a beer, so it doesn’t matter whether I like him or not either.

“The job of the president of the United Stats is to create jobs, not to be the friend of every American,” Mr. Maffatt said.

Mr. Maffatt said recent Hispanic immigrants have plenty of reason to favor Mr. Trump: They don’t want new immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, competing for “a job for whatever anyone will give them.”

“When we are new here and desperately trying to make a living, we will charge less than white Anglo-Saxons. We eventually improve our lot, but then when we have more new immigrants coming in, [and] we’re the first to lose our jobs because they’re willing to work for less money,” he said. }

Despite recent alphabet network robo-call polls saying otherwise, a Reuters poll of 10,500+ shows Carson tanking back down to ~18% (to Trump's 30%) after the latest debate.

Missed my post cutoff but wanted to share: Quinnipiac survey of 1,144 shows Jeb down to 4%

& with the liberal MSM now shrugging off Trump and hammering Rubio, Trump's nomination looks ever more real.

Maybe this will invigorate response from this thread…

CLINTON MACHINE TARGETS 'SEXIST' SANDERS

{ Clinton was in Charleston, South Carolina, addressing the local NAACP. She spoke against a tragic background: the massacre of nine black people in a Charleston church by a white racist. Naturally, she talked about guns. But she added a new line: “There are some who say that this [gun violence] is an urban problem. Sometimes what they mean by that is: It’s a black problem. But it’s not. It’s not black, it’s not urban. It’s a deep, profound challenge to who we are.”

The only recent forum in which guns have been discussed as an urban concern is the forum that inspired Clinton’s initial accusation of sexism: the Oct. 13 Democratic debate in Las Vegas. Pull up the transcript of that debate, search for “urban,” and you’ll see whom Clinton is talking about: Sanders.

In fact, it’s from the same moments of the debate that Clinton had already seized on. In the debate, Sanders told former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley: “We can raise our voices, but I come from a rural state, and the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states, whether we like it or not.” O’Malley insisted that the issue was “not about rural and urban.” Sanders replied: “It’s exactly about rural."

So when Clinton, on Friday, spoke scathingly of people who call guns an “urban problem” but mean it’s a “black problem,” it’s obvious to whom she was referring. }

It's actually both an urban and black problem, but we don't need those kinds of racist facts around here.

Sorry, I just don't have a lot of substantial commentary at the moment. I am reading all the new posts though.
As I said before, it doesn't surprise me immigrants are fine with Trump. As far as I can remember all his supposedly racist dialogue is directed specifically at illegal immigrants.
At this point I don't find the polls too interesting unless it shows someone significantly surging or falling behind, because it's so early they seem to be almost meaningless. A few months from now it'll probably be radically different, and we wouldn't have even made it to the first primary yet. I'm only interested in who looks like they're going to drop out myself.
I really don't like Clinton. I'm sorry Clinton fans, I don't. She supported investigating ExxonMobil… After they stopped funding her. That's not fishy as heck huh? I feel like I can't trust a word out of her mouth.

You're the only one who ever comments, Riv, nothing against you, just surprised that the overwhelming Democrat base here never feels like responding or posting their own updates, but then again it's not all that surprising that Democrats aren't actively involved in politics and current events. The party of low-info voters didn't get that way through stellar participation

Despite Hillary Clinton's scandals and the damning revelations of the past couple weeks, Bernie still can't touch her support-wise. The low-info party, which is eating up her every word, is going to nominate this blatant criminal because they simply don't care to pay attention.

I seriously hope not. Either of the other two Democratic candidates are preferable to her.

We don't respond because you never stop talking.

Also Bernie Sanders is 2nd coming of Christ and would save us trillions of dollars and improve social services and infrastructure for everyone and Hillary Clinton is a wax figurine of the Democratic Party eight years ago.

Neither do the candidates. Surprise, news changes and develops all day long! I know this must be shocking to hear for you political newbies, but you can believe me.

You keep repeating mindless headlines without actually addressing the issues. Why do you keep saying his policies will save us trillions when economic experts who have analyzed all the candidates plans say his can't even hope to generate the tens of billions his ideas require, let alone save us trillions? How does more Obamacare-esque redistribution improve social services and infrastructure when we're watching Obamacare literally go bankrupt? Do you know anything about his policies besides the gravely inaccurate one liners being spread by reddit?

I'd think if someone never stopped talking it'd stimulate conversation. I think it's just a bit slow right now for the presidential race. (Clarification: Stuff does happen a lot, but not very much of it seems particularly interesting, at least to me.)
That may be true (minus the 2nd coming of Christ thing), but I don't think it'd be a good idea. I don't want to get into a discussion of political philosophy and economics, but I don't think many of the things the government does or wants to do it has to the right to do. This includes things like universal healthcare, social security for the most part, stuff like that. I'd still prefer Bernie over Hillary though.

I didn't realize I was obligated to post in this thread to make the KYM Democrats look good.

Ted Cruz is batshit insane. Down with AIPAC. Whitehouse needs more doves. Pls don't build that oil pipe.

doen

That's the spirit!
It just gets a bit boring when the three top contributors to this thread by a longshot are a sort of eco-neoconserative (that's the best thing I could come up to describe her), a libertarian, and a constantly joking democratic socialist.

Nobody is obligated to post in the thread, all I said was that you accurately represent your party by not doing so. Being actively engaged in a thread like this would make KYM Democrats seem quite the outliers.

Same old one liners… why do you think Ted Cruz is batshit insane? What stances of the AIPAC do you oppose and which candidate shares your views? Will more doves bring a more peaceful disposition to the White House? & maybe the most easy to answer of all, what has lead to your stance against the Keystone XL?

This isn't RR, you have to at least put some effort in your General forum shitposting.

why do you think Ted Cruz is batshit insane?

Being married to the idea of America as the world police, and wanting to dump more money into military.

What stances of the AIPAC do you oppose

Any ones that prioritize the interests of Israel over America along with their support of the far right in Israel, which is quite a lot, as several senators have stated in the past.

example http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/friends-israel

and which candidate shares your views?

Not sure.

Will more doves bring a more peaceful disposition to the White House?

Possibly more congressional doves; I have little faith in what the presidents are going to do.

& maybe the most easy to answer of all, what has lead to your stance against the Keystone XL?

It's too big to risk building it (and therefore, risk it failing at any point).

That's a terrible answer to the only question I wanted to hear an answer to. There was a huge risk for failure when we sent people into space the first time, that didn't stop anyone. There was a huge risk for failure in every decision that has made an impact on history. You sound like some nerd kid in a Disney movie right before something awesome happens that makes them say fuck all that and take a big risk. Is that who you want to be for the rest of your life?

Those aren't comparable scenarios, though. Three people dying in space only wastes the money spent getting them there and makes their few relatives feel sad. Keystone bursting means millions of miles of groundwater is poisoned with oil.

Not if proper emergency fail-safes are put in place, which is kind of a standard precaution in any building project these days. The last time an oil pipe burst it was because the company who maintained it had a history of maintenance violations and the entire thing was corroded, there's no chance of a brand new pipe bursting in such a way, and since a portion of it is in Canada it would be far more well regulated and maintained in the long run. Plus we get the additional benefit of further decreasing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the vast human rights violations and ecologic devastation that comes with buying it.

there’s no chance of a brand new pipe bursting in such a way

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

Modern engineering is good, but it isn't infallible. It helps to build a pipe with more safety standards then before, but it's still thousands of miles long. It covers all sorts of terrain, all sorts of climates. There are so many things that could go wrong. Landslides, tornadoes, freezing, warming… and that's assuming the thing is built and repaired perfectly. Odds are that it won't be, and it only takes one mistake to have a huge disaster.

There is the benefit of getting weaning off the Middle East… which is still only a problem because the government isn't attempting to invest in any alternative methods of transportation besides motor transportation.

A brand new pipe has 0% chance of bursting because of corrosion and decades of neglected maintenance, which is the most common reasons pipes burst. Key words "in such a way".

We have hundreds of thousands of industrial water pipes and gas lines throughout the country, they cover all sorts of terrain and climate, they're made to and do stand up to the many things that can go wrong. Why does Keystone have such a dramatically greater chance of catastrophe than any of those pipes, which currently do not make a habit of exploding?

We wouldn't have to invest in any foreign oil from any country if the government was willing to look at alternative methods of energy and transportation, but here we are.

Why does Keystone have such a dramatically greater chance of catastrophe than any of those pipes, which currently do not make a habit of exploding?

A marginally higher risk of bursting due to having more stresses upon it, but that's only part of the issue.

The issue is that the damage that could be done if it were to burst is too high to risk it as compared to the other pipes you mentioned.

This is the kind of discussion I like to see from here.
I can see both sides tbh. While there are some nice benefits and the chance of failure is low, the cost of failure is huge. It's natural to be concerned about this. If something did go wrong, say, by incompetent and/or lazy workers, then the cost would be huge. I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I'd have to read up on it more.

{ The issue is that the damage that could be done if it were to burst is too high to risk it as compared to the other pipes you mentioned. }

Comparable risks stand today and we've seen huge oil spill disasters happen. Part of the negotiations is that it isn't just a bare pipe in the ground, there are measures to stop potential leaks from spreading in the event they happen, and we have much more advanced monitoring and warning technology installed with it. If something catastrophic enough happened that it failed through all of those measures, I don't think the pipe would be our only or most prominent concern because that would take one hell of a natural disaster.

That long shot doesn't outweigh all of the other benefits for me.

In a move that has made me like Rubio more, he corrected a guy who compared Bernie Sander's policies to communism, and then commended him on being true to his ideology.

The Florida Republican corrected a questioner at a "Life of the Party" event in New Hampshire Wednesday who compared Sanders' brand of socialism with what Rubio's family fled when they left Cuba.

"In fairness, they fled communism," Rubio interjected. "There is social democracy, right, like you see in Europe, where government provides for every aspect of your life, but there's consequence to that. They fled communism, which is beyond socialism, obviously where government controls society, but also government controls politics, life, the banning of religion, people were being executed."

The questioner took his point, but asked him if he ever wants to tell Sanders that he's going too far.

Rubio disagreed, saying that while he's not a supporter of socialism, he praises Sanders for speaking his mind.

"What I appreciate about Bernie is he's not trying to shirk from it," Rubio said. "It's what he believes in. He's honest about it."

He also noted that the viewpoint obviously resonates with plenty of people who support Sanders' presidential campaign and have re-elected him in Vermont.

"I don't think it works for America," Rubio said. "My argument is, you want to live in a country like that -- there's like dozens of countries around the world that are socialist -- move there. We should continue to be America."

But the beauty of democracy, Rubio added, is that the debate can happen.

"I don't personally have a problem with Bernie because he's being honest about what he believes in. I'd love to have that debate," Rubio said.

This is what I want to see. Not bipartisanship, per se, but people getting along across the aisle.

Comparable risks stand today and we’ve seen huge oil spill disasters happen.

Not an encouraging sentiment…

If something catastrophic enough happened that it failed through all of those measures, I don’t think the pipe would be our only or most prominent concern because that would take one hell of a natural disaster.

Things like nasty blizzards or landslides or tornadoes aren't uncommon where they would build it. And they would do far less damage compared to the pipe bursting.

We deal with them, do we not? And those are literally just pipes in the ground/ocean, so they have a much greater chance of horrible things happening, but even then it's a really rare occasion.

Blizzards and tornadoes can't fuck with a pipe system this big and buried. Maybe the largest landslide the modern world has ever seen could, but it would take a decent sized earthquake or volcanic eruption to do significant damage to the aquifer because of how it formed. It's layers and layers and layers of thick sand, soil, rock, etc between the pipe's path and the water. Nebraska's environmental agency did a study and found impact would be localized to an extremely small area in the event of an incident, would have to look it up to get actual data. It wouldn't be like an oil spill directly into the ocean or into a river, we'd be able to get emergency clean up crews out there quickly if something did happen.

We deal with them, do we not?

Not well enough.

Blizzards and tornadoes can’t fuck with a pipe system this big and buried. Maybe the largest landslide the modern world has ever seen could, but it would take a decent sized earthquake or volcanic eruption to do significant damage to the aquifer because of how it formed.

The issue of heating/contracting still remains, however, as does the question of how long it can function before suffering some kind of damage.

Nebraska’s environmental agency did a study and found impact would be localized to an extremely small area in the event of an incident, would have to look it up to get actual data.

The EPA disagreed.

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=23434&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Dude you need calm the freak down. No balding, eccentric, popular, presidential candidate, who is loathed by the media, deserves the title of "Christ". Or king. The U.S. constitution was written to go against monarchies.

At the risk of going off topic, I don't believe Jesus was particularly liked by the people in his day, so the media thing is kinda irrelevant. Also, be just likes being very odd. You can only try to read the message under the message to see what he believes.

{ The EPA disagreed. }

The EPA is a federal government body whose ozone mandates ("clean air standards") are so goddamn unrealistic, 26 national parks fail to meet them (and it's because of how many wildfires they have per year). The Supreme Court has personally thrown out a few of their more ludicrous regulations. This is the agency that tried to regulate that nobody in the entire country could legally collect rainwater on their property because the federal government owns the rain. When will you people learn to stop defaulting to the feds??

{ The issue of heating/contracting still remains, however, as does the question of how long it can function before suffering some kind of damage. }

Same can be said for all the nuclear reactors. Same can be said for tens of thousands of ticking time bombs in this country that we're able to ignore because the product makes our lives easier. The only reason the Obama administration and Democrats have been adamantly against the Keystone XL is because they don't want to cut into their Arab buddies' funding.

Bernie Sanders Takes Gloves Off Against Hillary Clinton in Interview

{ Sen. Sanders of Vermont, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, also said the federal investigation of the security surrounding Mrs. Clinton’s private email account is appropriate. }

But he was so damn tired of hearing about it at the debate!? Another Clinton PR ploy exposed, they probably wouldn't let him on the stage unless he said it.

{ The most recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll showed that only a quarter of registered voters gave Mrs. Clinton high marks when it came to being “honest and straightforward.” By contrast, half of those polled gave her low marks in that regard.

Yet polling also shows that Mr. Sanders is losing ground to Mrs. Clinton and relinquishing the edge he had in Iowa and New Hampshire, the states that hold the first two contests. The same Journal-NBC News poll showed Mrs. Clinton beating Mr. Sanders by a margin of 62%-31% nationally. }

& you people think my party is fucked?!

I suppose the Nebraska Environmental Agency is the paragon of practicality, then?

Same can be said for all the nuclear reactors.

Nuclear reactors have disasterously failed a lot less often then oil pipelines or drilling operations.

The only reason the Obama administration and Democrats have been adamantly against the Keystone XL is because they doesn’t want to cut into their Arab buddies’ funding.

The only reason Trump and the Republicans have been adamantly in favor of fighting ISIS is because they don't want to cut into their Arab buddies' funding. Yadda, yadda, yadda…

Nuclear reactors are more comparable to the kind of technology being used for this pipeline, vs exposed oil lines or active drilling.

State agencies are a hell of a lot less corrupt than federal, and often even employ people like me who went to college specifically to gain the credibility to oppose these federal alarmists.

Fighting ISIS costs the region money, at the very least we do make our "ally countries" fund some part of the endeavor and they do want them gone. Democrats who want to pull out and let the disgusting human rights violations continue, from both terrorists and Islamic governments, are the ones trying their best to protect the oil sheiks' pocketbooks, the very same billionaires who privately fund ISIS themselves, completing the circle quite nicely.

Perhaps this might interest you, then?

http://watercenter.unl.edu/downloads/2011-Worst-case-Keystone-spills-report.pdf

Democrats who want to pull out and let the disgusting human rights violations continue, from both terrorists and Islamic governments, are the ones trying their best to protect the oil sheiks’ pocketbooks

Yes, because not paying for their entire military defences instead of letting them fight ISIS would be helping them. It must be my liberal political naivite acting up again. My mistake

Nuclear reactors are more comparable to the kind of technology being used for this pipeline

Nuclear reactors have a lot more safety inherent in their design due to them being much smaller and exposed to much less natural stimuli. I'm not seeing it.

They wouldn't fight ISIS themselves, half of their general populations are joining them as the days go by. None of these people want moderate reform, they're perfectly fine with ISIS' game plan. Why would these billionaires with wife harems and teenage prostitutes want to convert to a world where all that goes away and they have to start treating women as equals and people in general with respect? The government wants ISIS gone because they want the international sanctions to come down and to be taken seriously on a global level (and even then, they're not truly our allies), the general population does not. As we see with Iran, we give an inch and they take a mile. Not only are they test firing missiles in our face, they're holding national celebrations featuring more "Death to America" chants, burning effigies of Obama and American flags, all in honor of the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran. The Supreme Leader once again said "'Iran will not cooperate directly or indirectly with the United States". Official statement.

Iran was also invited to a UN meeting on China's actions for the first time ever a few weeks ago~ Don't they deserve to be taken more seriously on an international scale because of that nuke deal after all?

This is Democrat foreign policy at its finest.

{ Nuclear reactors have a lot more safety inherent in their design due to them being much smaller and exposed to much less natural stimuli. I’m not seeing it. }

The Keystone had a lot more safety inherent in its design because two giant countries waged a legal pissing war against each other to ensure it was as failproof as possible. They didn't design it to sort of stand the test of time and nature.

You know the argument was about what the rich oil shieks were thinking? I don't know why you're rambling about the Iran deal again, but I don't really give a shit anyway.

The rich oil sheiks are the ones funding ISIS, who are also the ones benefiting from the release of ~$250,000,000,000 in frozen assets. They're the ones who benefit from the West not interfering, which is the Democrats' isolationist standard.

Yes, international issues are generally complex and hundreds of seemingly minute factors contribute to each, which grow exponentially as more countries decide to get involved. Welcome to politics.

Ę̭͍̪p̠̞̍ͪy͎̹ͅc̱͔͗̍ W̼̯͉̐͞y̛̦̦nͧͪ̍ said:

Also Bernie Sanders is 2nd coming of Christ…

So… he's going to wage a bloody war in the Valley of Meggido against Russia and China that will kill tens of millions before ushering in his thousand year reign?

Sounds kind of neo-con to me.

jarbox said:

Keystone bursting means millions of miles of groundwater is poisoned with oil.

I never really understood this argument considering this is what the US's pipeline network currently looks like:

Adding one more red line to that isn't really going to change things that much--especially since that red line will be shiny new and watched like a hawk by the environmentalists, while all the other ones can safely leak underground because they're decades old, since no one seems to care about pipeline safety unless it has "Keystone" in its name.

On the lighter side: 2016 candidates ranked by how likely they are to die in office

TL;DR: Donald Trump is immortal, Bernie Sanders may as well be dead already.