Prelude to the Apocalypse

[quash]

This guy gets it. Now I have to figure out a way to visualize six standard deviations and turn it into a meme.

It equates to a one in a billion chance, so maybe I can use a pre-existing Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson image macro.

"You see that tiny star over there? That's us. And that's Hillary Clinton's chance of winning an election cleanly."

[Skykid]

It's almost like a certain video game called this years before it grabbed our society by the throat.

Name of the game?

Metal Gear Solid 2. If you haven't played it, do so. If it's been years since the last time you played it, watch the cutscenes through the lens of present day media hysteria and mass confirmation bias via memes.

Don't.

Any parallels between it and present day media hysteria and politics are blind luck thanks to the volumes of unfiltered shit that makes up the game's so-called narrative. It's basically Kojima trying his best to appear educated, philosophical, prophetic and visionary, which usually results in - and certainly did so in this case - the worst possible kind of Japanese "storytelling" (finely crafted convoluted nonsense).

[quash]

He should play it and decide for himself.

Here's something else to chew on: it's recently been reported that George Soros, of all people, has been funding anti-Israeli causes.

This should explain part of why Trump has made it a point to keep AIPAC happy.

[Mischief Maker]

Really? There isn't any serious talk about undoing the sixth amendment, but you've decided we're headed there anyway, and your proof is a freelance op-ed by a militant feminist crank?

I'm beginning to understand the thought process behind most of your conspiracy theories.

Stuff like this is testing the waters: seeing how far the envelope can be pushed before people start pushing back.

I'm glad it seems like we've found one thing we can all agree on, at least.

My friend Occam called. He says you need a shave.

[BryanM]

Any parallels between it and present day media hysteria and politics are blind luck thanks to the volumes of unfiltered shit that makes up the game's so-called narrative. It's basically Kojima trying his best to appear educated, philosophical, prophetic and visionary, which usually results in - and certainly did so in this case - the worst possible kind of Japanese "storytelling" (finely crafted convoluted nonsense).

Ah that's not fair. Metal Gear is a ridiculous world where you fight old geezers using revolvers, robot ninjas that can deflect bullets, helicopters, snipers, magic wizards, get into boxing matches with the final boss for no discernible reason, and such. The conspiracy theory diarrhea madness is completely congruent with that world.

How boring realistic mundane truth would be. "The owner of Home Depot wants a tax break. And cheap labor to stimulate sales of lumber and sink faucets." zzzzzzzz snore.

Let me put on a six hour bloc of television programming about Hitler being in cahoots with the space aliens to defeat FDR's secret army of necromancer zombie ninjas.

[Durandal]

How boring realistic mundane truth would be. "The owner of Home Depot wants a tax break. And cheap labor to stimulate sales of lumber and sink faucets." zzzzzzzz snore.

You'll have a harder time convincing me that there isn't some kind of global conspiracy of old men running the world. What kind of boring world would we live in if we just accepted coincidences for what they are?

[BryanM]

"Conspiracy" is such a loaded term. I prefer the term "unadvertised coordination."

Medical care is seriously fucked. What kind of product tells you the price only AFTER you buy it? You don't walk into a hotel or Arby's without a giant fuckoff sign telling you the prices of things.

Here in Oklahoma, it's even illegal for Wal-Mart to sell eye glasses. It's one of the most incredible anti-consumer laws in the history of anything. Well over a 50% mark up of the real price, in this godless forsaken wasteland.

Somehow that feels so much more personal than some bomb manufacturer that wants us to buy a huge continuous stock and paid his bribes to get the public policy to do so. That's how they get ya: by being silent and invisible, divided completely from our day to day lives. "Please worry about the Mexicans", so that Sanders will lose and Hillary will become president, they say instead.

[Ed Oscuro]

Trump gives the Clinton camp another gift today, claiming that he doesn't need the US intelligence community.

No doubt replacing everybody with ex-cabbies will fill that gap 90% of the way. The last 10% Putin can tell him about, right?

And speaking about conspiracies, anybody remember that big tax writeoff Chris Christie (who will be present for Trump's intelligence briefing today) gifted Trump? Under his government, NJ settled for $5M of $30M.

I'm still wondering if quash has an obsession with making sure dudes don't go to jail for rape. I'd like to be wrong, it's creepy.

This is the kind of thought process that ousts you as being a useful idiot. It could have been about any given social subject asking for extrajudicial treatment.

You chose the topic, not me. You know, you could have buried this quite easily if you're not obsessed with getting rapists off.

I've asked you twice now to clarify things, and I don't think you've responded either time. You're just spewing garbage everywhere.

[BryanM]

Yes, we know Donald wants Hillary to be president. That was the entire point of him running.

Water is wet. Puppies bark. Snakes can kill tanks with their fists.

[quash]

Trump gives the Clinton camp another gift today, claiming that he doesn't need the US intelligence community.

You know, just from reading this, I can almost guarantee that there was more to the quote than this.

If there isn't: at least he's honest about it lol. Obama does what he damn well pleases and disregards most of what crosses his desk, anyways.

You chose the topic, not me. You know, you could have buried this quite easily if you're not obsessed with getting rapists off.

I've asked you twice now to clarify things, and I don't think you've responded either time. You're just spewing garbage everywhere.

Let's take this to court, except let's make sure that instead of a jury, we have a court appointed expert to oversee the case. Because slandering me over the internet is such a heinous crime that we can't possibly trust a jury to be impartial. Too many oppressive shitlords out there trying to exert their privilege.

[Ed Oscuro]

Was it that obvious back when you wrote that Trump was destroying democracy to save it?

Let's think back to the nominating process. Trump had to be seen as interesting enough to run, and the media overexposed him (at least according to a few media people). The shock of news and his off-the-cuff remarks caught the rest of the field unprepared, and none of those people really had a clue what to do with him, or the will to mix it up with him. He was saying all the same dumb self-destructive things now that he was at day one, but it took a few rolls of the dice (and perhaps some accidental baiting at the Dem Convention) to find the issue that would really set him over. Now it seems like he's finally crossed that line.

Perhaps you can claim that he had to make sure he was sunk after he had gotten the nomination, but before the election, but there's still months left for GOP breakaway factions to still try and salvage a win for him, or do something else.

And I suspect we'd have to go deep into the weeds of conspiracy theories to guess why it had to be Hillary Clinton getting the nod, especially if you feel that Hillary is a closet neocon or that her campaign logo is a reference to the image of a plane plowing into the Twin Towers.

I don't see how this could be an Illuminati-type deal. Supposing Trump might make a deal to turn over fiat powers to the Illuminati, they would still have to deal with the issue of boiling resentment amongst a large part of the population. Unless the argument is that you need to find some unifying cause with which to label dissenters, but Trump sympathizers don't all wear a label. More plausibly, if it's an attempt to sideline promising reform efforts, that makes even less sense because neither Trump nor his supporters have the intelligence, patience, or vision to carry out meaningful reforms, as a group.

[Ed Oscuro]

Let's take this to court, except let's make sure that instead of a jury, we have a court appointed expert to oversee the case. Because slandering me over the internet is such a heinous crime that we can't possibly trust a jury to be impartial. Too many oppressive shitlords out there trying to exert their privilege.

Huh? Asking for clarification about whether this is the second time you've decided to take up the cause of rapists is "slander?" I don't think I have to slander you since you've made it abundantly clear to everybody else how big a waste of time your posts are.

p.s. Yes, you do have my permission to go read what Trump said about not needing intelligence. Once again, it's obvious that you rarely read past the headline.

[BulletMagnet]

Offset by kleptocrat, tim cain.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone Hillary could have selected who wouldn't "offset" Trump's selection of Pence, if religious extremists in office are that major a concern to you?

[Obscura]

Medical care is seriously fucked. What kind of product tells you the price only AFTER you buy it? You don't walk into a hotel or Arby's without a giant fuckoff sign telling you the prices of things.

Uh, what? I've always been told what my co-pay would be before I've received medical treatment, unless it was emergency treatment, in which case the hospital didn't know what treatments would be necessary before I was shipped in there (and, thus, didn't know what the price would be). You receive the product before you actually pay for it, yes, because as a society, we generally frown on the idea of doctors turning away patients (at least if they have insurance), but you know the price first, unless you're being an irresponsible idiot (which seems likely for much of the left, I will admit).

[quash]

Huh? Asking for clarification about whether this is the second time you've decided to take up the cause of rapists is "slander?"

You are doing exactly that which I was worried about: hiding behind social issues in an attempt to subvert the rule of law.

I was trying to drive the point home for our audience, but you're clearly not picking up on it. So no more beating around the bush, okay? No, I'm not advocating for special treatment of rapists.

Now it's your turn. Are you advocating for certain crimes to not be subject to trial by jury?

Yes, you do have my permission to go read what Trump said about not needing intelligence. Once again, it's obvious that you rarely read past the headline.

This coming from the guy who linked a Wikipedia article that blatantly contradicted his assertion that Democrats voted against Iraq.

If anyone here has lost the ability to use this on anyone, it's you.

[Bitter Almonds]

Offset by kleptocrat, tim cain.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone Hillary could have selected who wouldn't "offset" Trump's selection of Pence, if religious extremists in office are that major a concern to you?

I can't think of any of her cronies being a better choice than sancho pence. tim cain likes to tout his missionary work and his catholic faith a lot, but he smacks of medieval clergy - for the right price, anyone can buy an indulgence from him.

[Mischief Maker]

Offset by kleptocrat, tim cain.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone Hillary could have selected who wouldn't "offset" Trump's selection of Pence, if religious extremists in office are that major a concern to you?

I can answer that! Elizabeth Warren!

Arrogant fucking neolibs.

[BryanM]

Out of curiosity, is there anyone Hillary could have selected who wouldn't "offset" Trump's selection of Pence, if religious extremists in office are that major a concern to you?

I'd like to take a minute here to talk about the word "could".

"Could" denotes an ability to do something - I can punch a cop in the face but I do not have the means to punch the Sun. In some useless theoretical thought experiment, yeah I can go up there in a space ship with a magic space suit and punch it at some non-specific future time. But that's a really pedantic stretching of the use "can".

The will to do something is 100% necessary to accomplish anything - the mere physical possibility isn't enough on its own. (Therefore the colloquial use of the word "could" as a substitution for the word "would" is actually perfectly fine and correct, in my opinion. Can you agree with me on that?) Hillary Clinton could not have chosen Liz or Brown or Edwards as her running mate. It's extraordinarily difficult to even assert she had any input, let alone final say, on who was chosen. (Her patrons decided on Caine. She didn't.) A Hillary Clinton that could pick a Liz, is a completely different person with completely different patrons and obligations and world views and values than the one we have. An occupant of one of those alternate universes in Ed's favorite Jet Li movie.

So the question boiled down to its true bones is "If Hillary Clinton wasn't so bad, would she be better?"

Yeah, it would be incredible if she were. But she isn't.

(i.e. crazy). It doesn't help the problem, it just makes reasonable people more likely to distance themselves from the solutions you offer.

........

And on that note, Trump is the better candidate because he will break something and we've reached the point where that's better than most alternatives.

You're kind of uh, agreeing 78% with me here.

.... thanks for your support, I guess?

"Reasonable people think we should nuke everything with Trump because that's better than what's going to happen if he doesn't! I'M NOT FUCKING CRAZY!" -- A reasonable man.

[Bitter Almonds]

$hillary would never pick Elizabeth Warren...

https://www.americarisingpac.org/flashb ... be-bought/

[Skykid]

Any parallels between it and present day media hysteria and politics are blind luck thanks to the volumes of unfiltered shit that makes up the game's so-called narrative. It's basically Kojima trying his best to appear educated, philosophical, prophetic and visionary, which usually results in - and certainly did so in this case - the worst possible kind of Japanese "storytelling" (finely crafted convoluted nonsense).

Ah that's not fair.

It's as fair as fair can be; it's the truth.

[Ed Oscuro]

Huh? Asking for clarification about whether this is the second time you've decided to take up the cause of rapists is "slander?"

You are doing exactly that which I was worried about: hiding behind social issues in an attempt to subvert the rule of law.

I was trying to drive the point home for our audience, but you're clearly not picking up on it. So no more beating around the bush, okay? No, I'm not advocating for special treatment of rapists.

Now it's your turn. Are you advocating for certain crimes to not be subject to trial by jury?

You're too stupid, or too selfish, to realize that I have been throwing you multiple lifelines to let you dig yourself out of the "rapists" story.

When I challenge your hysteria, it does not automatically make me advocate the view opposing yours. This is something a small child can understand. Not giving special privileges to rapists does not mean giving them to SJWs. If I don't give the cookie to Bob it does not mean I give it to Billy. The last link I posted offered a lot of different explanations for the decline in jury trials, and none of it had anything to do with activists. This you are also too stupid, or selfish, to ever acknowledge.

Go read a goddamn book or something. In the US the right wing has been responsible for a lot more persecution and contravention of the rule of law than the left ever has, including the Red scare, the War on Drugs, and now the Muslim scare.

That's to say nothing of the widespread outrage over lenient sentencing of rapists, who are also dangerous. I find it hard to disagree with the people who wonder why, with so many rapists getting an easy time, we keep hearing from elements of the right wing that this is actually an issue of "men's rights" and that if we don't do whatever that the result will be summary judgements and an end to the jury trial system. Well, it'd help if there actually was some issue here, but this is really just so much smoke blowing.

Yes, you do have my permission to go read what Trump said about not needing intelligence. Once again, it's obvious that you rarely read past the headline.

This coming from the guy who linked a Wikipedia article that blatantly contradicted his assertion that Democrats voted against Iraq.

If anyone here has lost the ability to use this on anyone, it's you.

This from a guy who posts a random hysterical English op-ed as a sign of the US justice system in decline, oy!

quash won't even pretend to deny that he actually doesn't read for detail, and he doesn't. This is what happens when your debating style is to try and evade or redirect every last issue; it shows you up as a dishonest fool.

Your choice of selecting a badly-remembered argument that you refuse to revisit (perhaps out of fear that it might not turn out to be the issue you put forward), while ignoring the other (and probably better) arguments I made in favor of not assigning the Dems equal blame for the Iraq War, says something about your lack of honesty as well.

So let's see. How many straw men are in a quash post?

One: Assigning a view to me I don't hold about SJWs.
Two: Using a random crazy English op-ed as proof of an SJW conspiracy.
Three: Dishonestly using his version of old forum history instead of looking at the arguments I've put forward today.

That's not covering the many times over just the last few pages that quash has tried to make the debate a personal confrontation by evading challenges or evidence.

BAD CHATBOT.

Go away.

[quash]

You're too stupid, or too selfish, to realize that I have been throwing you multiple lifelines to let you dig yourself out of the "rapists" story.

That wasn't the point of what I was saying at all. The "rapists story" is a figment of your imagination. Not once have I ever said I want accused rapists to be treated differently under the law.

When I challenge your hysteria, it does not automatically make me advocate the view opposing yours.

Not giving special privileges to rapists does not mean giving them to SJWs.

The hysteria is that you're accusing me of saying something I never even insinuated.

My only stated view is that no social issue is worth the Sixth Amendment. You're creating a strawman, as usual.

This you are also too stupid, or selfish, to ever acknowledge.

Or maybe, like almost everything you bring up, it has little to nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Go read a goddamn book or something. In the US the right wing has been responsible for a lot more persecution and contravention of the rule of law than the left ever has, including the Red scare, the War on Drugs, and now the Muslim scare.

Debatable. And in any case, the Red Scare was rooted in legitimate fear based on the limited evidence McCarthy had. When all this information declassified, it turned out that it was even worse than he said it was!

This is another common tactic of the left: paint the other side as paranoid, even when the fear is rooted in legitimate concern and/or evidence.

This from a guy who posts a random hysterical English op-ed as a sign of the US justice system in decline, oy!

I never said it was a sign of the US justice system's decline. You are, as usual, making shit up.

Given that England is within the Anglosphere and that it provided the US its basis of common law, it's not unreasonable to show concern over the tenets of said law coming under fire. It's not like the First and Second amendments are held sacred by the American left, as it is.

quash won't even pretend to deny that he actually doesn't read for detail, and he doesn't.

I read every last word of everything I link. It's your warped interpretation of the world around you that makes things look unrelated or contradictory when they're perfectly logical and vice versa.

Look guys, Democrats voted against Iraq! This article I link proves it by showing 58℅ of Democratic senators voted for it!

This is what happens when your debating style is to try and evade or redirect every last issue; it shows you up as a dishonest fool.

You're the one that refuses to answer the most basic of questions directly. If that's not evasion, I don't know what is.

One: Assigning a view to me I don't hold about SJWs.

I didn't assign anything you moron. You called me a rapist sympathizer at least twice and STILL managed to avoid answering my question.

Two: Using a random crazy English op-ed as proof of an SJW conspiracy.

I used it as a way to see where the mentality of people is regarding weight of social issues vs rule of law. Once again, your complete and utter inability to read context is showing.

Three: Dishonestly using his version of old forum history instead of looking at the arguments I've put forward today.

What is dishonest about it? You said, nay, insisted that Democrats voted against the invasion of Iraq. The house Democrats did, but the Republicans had the majority at the time so it was assumed that they'd pass it to the Senate. That was when the ball was in the Democrat's court, and that was their chance to shoot it down. They failed.

Your argument for them being against the war is that they made a huge stink about it... after they passed it through the Senate.

That's not covering the many times over just the last few pages that quash has tried to make the debate a personal confrontation by evading challenges or evidence.

If anything, I have done my best to not make things personal with anyone. But when a bunch of passive aggressive autists come out of the woodwork to coax you into arguments they intentionally take to a dead end, what the fuck kind of response do you expect?

That's not to speak of the big three in this thread (of which yourself is included), who are constantly taking talking points from the DNC playbook to avoid talking about what really matters with this election: how it stands to change America's place in the world via changes in foreign policy.

BAD CHATBOT.

Go away.

Good Lord; not only are you horribly incompetent at arguing, you're horrendously unfunny, to boot. No wonder you want me to leave: I'm the only turbulence in your echo chamber.

[quash]

Seriously though, what are you even trying to communicate?

Mischief Maker will at least answer my questions, even if he can only be snarky about it.

BulletMagnet will throw in unrelated jabs against Trump and try to lead me astray, but even he will answer a question I clearly direct at him.

But you? I don't even know where you come up with half the shit you say. Coming from me, you know it's not for a lack of attention span.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think I'm being accurate when I say that the whole point of your rapists story was that it was meant to get those ol' "sympathy glands" juicing, wasn't it? When you decided to drop that like a hot potato, suddenly it became clear to anybody paying attention that you were trying to tell a story that has almost no relation to the real world. Look, we're not stupid - you didn't choose to talk about rapists by complete accident. Or is it that when it comes to choosing between honor and incompetence, you'll choose to look incompetent, poor quash, evil liberals laughing at the po' boy who doesn't know what to talk about? I've been concerned by stories of SJW abuse and excess for years now - sometimes they do fuck things up, and I've posted on Shmups about that too. But SJWish types don't represent this kind of threat to the justice system, especially not in the context of this election. Even the way in which you suggest it would happen - by removing juries - the reality is that when that happens it's due to prosecutorial aggressiveness or some other route that tends to fuck up the kind of people who the SJWs tend to be more concerned with winning justice for - i.e. not male WASPish types. (Again you're not good on details: It's another leap too far to assume that any random justice trying a case without a jury would automatically take the side of SJWs.)

The part that makes me laugh the most is that you try to bring this into the context of this election. Doesn't your attention span extend back to Black Lives Matter protesters disrupting Clinton campaign events? Clinton does actually get criticized by the extreme left. The chances a Clinton Administration would try and do whatever it is you think is going to happen are close to nil. Once again, it's Trump who we should be worried about here, Mr. To Hell With The Rules Except When They Favor Me.

Let's talk a bit about your profound dishonesty and laziness. You're absolutely certain that you didn't want anybody to think you wanted rapists to get preferential treatment, which seems reasonable enough. I note you're objecting to the possibility of being strawmanned.

But if we take the current climate of widespread outrage at absurdly lenient sentences for rapists, it's hard not to look at your choice of topic in the culture wars and think it might be revealing.

Let's assume that Brock Turner got a longer sentence. Would you then claim that was due to SJW interference in the trial? Would it have mattered to you if he was black or Hispanic?

In between snotty remarks you accuse me of not adding to the discussion. That's a hell of a claim, given that I usually give one or two well-sourced links to back up a post. For your part, you seem to spend your time avoiding factual references as if they carried a plague. I actually spent a few minutes looking through all the Google results on this forum for an Iraq House vote but didn't turn up this half-remembered issue you want to hold me to. If you were trying to have a discussion in good faith, you would have made an effort to find that by now. No doubt that debate didn't go exactly as you claim it did (though I do recall the disagreement about the vote tallies - whether I made a mistake there or not, I'm confident it wouldn't alter my point). Or you'd let me explain what my stance is now. Or you'd look to my argument from just days ago, where anybody can easily look at what was written to get the right context.

Or you'd just let the goddamned thing go since Clinton has shown a capacity for learning from what she now calls, in hindsight, a mistake, and one that was made at one of the most stressful times in living memory, at which point she still attempted to restrain the Bush Administration from being rash (as they ultimately were), despite the fact that the same Administration's Afghanistan war was widely approved, and also despite the fact that not ten years previously we had mounted a successful campaign in Iraq and disengaged more or less cleanly from it. But this would be assuming you're actually an intelligent, honest, dilligent, kind person, one capable of learning.

Like any immature forum troll, you can sure piss and moan about being strawmanned, but you love to do it too. You're a lazy troll, too, that never posts a useful news link or bothers to write in details of what's happening in the real world. If somebody did manage to "lead you astray" from your laziness and copy-pasted right wing talk show nonsense, it'd only be an improvement.

[quash]

I think I'm being accurate when I say that the whole point of your rapists story was that it was meant to get those ol' "sympathy glands" juicing, wasn't it?

You're thinking wrong. I've said before that it could have been about literally any issue, it makes no difference to me.

It could've been asking for white males to not have juries on their trials when they shoot black males, or Muslim terrorists to not have juries on their trials when they blow up buildings, etc. The subject of focus was the undermining of trial by jury.

Mischief Maker got it. He may disagree with me about it being a potential issue in the future and may ostracize me for it, but at least he understood that I wasn't focusing on the fact that this example just happened to be about rape cases. You, on the other hand, are desperate to save face, and will latch on to anything you can to do so.

When you decided to drop that like a hot potato, suddenly it became clear to anybody paying attention that you were trying to tell a story that has almost no relation to the real world.

No relation to the real world... yet. Because we haven't had billionaires funding guerilla movements disguised as grassroots activism to push this down our throats... yet.

Look, we're not stupid - you didn't choose to talk about rapists by complete accident.

What's this? A conspiracy theory? Are you projecting your rape fantasies on to me?

See, anyone can do this. Doesn't take much in the way of creativity or, you know, addressing anything. Not necessarily targeted at you, just making a point for our audience.

But SJWish types don't represent this kind of threat to the justice system, especially not in the context of this election.

And yet, in spite of all the things Hillary is most decidedly not to the left on, the one thing leftists are holding on to is the vain hope that she'll appoint some liberal justices to the SCOTUS.

I see an admittedly fringe leftist advocating for social justice to override rule of law, wonder how many people would actually support such a thing, and post the link here in the nature of query. Not very hard to figure out.

Again you're not good on details: It's another leap too far to assume that any random justice trying a case without a jury would automatically take the side of SJWs.

But again, is this not what a liberal SCOTUS would lean towards? My question is how far the lean goes before someone says "No, that's dumb".

I truthfully can't gauge it on my own, even with some of my insane leftist pals posting this kind of stuff on Facebook with mixed reactions. Again, I cite the prevailing liberal attitudes towards "hate speech" and gun control as cause for concern, as it sets the precedent that the US Constitution ceases to matter where other's comfort ends.

Clinton does actually get criticized by the extreme left. The chances a Clinton Administration would try and do whatever it is you think is going to happen are close to nil.

No shit. I'm thinking long term, here. Apparently, you begrudging Hillary supporters are, too.

Once again, it's Trump who we should be worried about here, Mr. To Hell With The Rules Except When They Favor Me.

Let's not compare the two on this anymore, alright? We all know who's gotten away with murder, figuratively and literally.

Let's talk a bit about your profound dishonesty and laziness. You're absolutely certain that you didn't want anybody to think you wanted rapists to get preferential treatment, which seems reasonable enough. I note you're objecting to the possibility of being strawmanned.

But if we take the current climate of widespread outrage at absurdly lenient sentences for rapists, it's hard not to look at your choice of topic in the culture wars and think it might be revealing.

Honestly, and this is an embarrassing thing to admit, so take it at face value: I had no clue we were facing such an epidemic. Too busy maintaining the balance of power in the Pacific and all that.

Let's assume that Brock Turner got a longer sentence. Would you then claim that was due to SJW interference in the trial? Would it have mattered to you if he was black or Hispanic?

Oh, this case.

You know what color got this kid out of a harsher sentence? It wasn't white, black or brown, but green; the only color that matters when staring down the gavel for a crime you most certainly committed.

In between snotty remarks you accuse me of not adding to the discussion. That's a hell of a claim, given that I usually give one or two well-sourced links to back up a post.

It's more that you derail the discussion from what everyone else was talking about entirely. Kind of like this.

For your part, you seem to spend your time avoiding factual references as if they carried a plague.

I linked a raw document that looked into the potential for election fraud during the Democratic primary and got not as much as one response, yet a simple opinion piece is enough to get people riled up.

Maybe, just maybe, we aren't all as concerned with facts and figures as we claim to be? Maybe Trump is on to something with his campaign strategy? Maybe we are all our own worst enemy?

Iraq

Look, I would be way more forgiving on this if you didn't both deny it and assert that I'm the one linking things without reading them. Iraq is dead and buried, but how it got us to where we are today is worth remembering.

Or you'd just let the goddamned thing go since Clinton has shown a capacity for learning from what she now calls, in hindsight, a mistake, and one that was made at one of the most stressful times in living memory, at which point she still attempted to restrain the Bush Administration from being rash (as they ultimately were), despite the fact that the same Administration's Afghanistan war was widely approved, and also despite the fact that not ten years previously we had mounted a successful campaign in Iraq and disengaged more or less cleanly from it. But this would be assuming you're actually an intelligent, honest, dilligent, kind person, one capable of learning.

So where's the forgiveness for Powell? Or any of the Republicans who later expressed regret for supporting the war?
Your proposition seems awfully one sided, is all I'm saying.

you can sure piss and moan about being strawmanned, but you love to do it too.

Of course; everyone does, whether they like to admit it or not. But you grasp particularly hard at things that not even my imagination would think of.

You're a lazy troll, too, that never posts a useful news link or bothers to write in details of what's happening in the real world. If somebody did manage to "lead you astray" from your laziness and copy-pasted right wing talk show nonsense, it'd only be an improvement.

Oh please. Any time I link strategic moves of Russia or China I get crickets, and maybe someone asking for a DNC approved source.

Once again, I posit that nobody is actually as interested in facts as they claim they are. Because if they were, they'd know, for example, the score on the SCS, and they'd know that shit is getting serious.

I witnessed Woody Island go from some sand in the ocean to a forward operating airstrip and naval port in real time for an entire year. If you don't understand why this is such an important development for US relations with not just China, but all of Asia, you haven't been paying attention to the fuel tank next to the flashpoint of the Middle East. Don't get mad at me; blame the shitty, manipulative media for misleading you into thinking that everything over here is just fine.

[ED-057]

Ed, what are you doing? You're killing the mood here. This thread was going so well, and now look at it. Look at it, Ed.

I think I'm being accurate when I say that the whole point of your rapists story was

You have no idea what the point was. I didn't follow quash's link. Didn't read a single word of the story. Yet somehow, perhaps owing to my Holmesian powers of deduction, I can tell that you completely missed the point.

But it's ok. Let's get back on topic.

Do you think First Lady Melania Trump will maintain the White House vegetable garden?

[ED-057]

I linked a raw document that looked into the potential for election fraud

Talking about election fraud is like suggesting that pro wrestling is staged. In our hearts we know the truth, but we'd rather preserve the entertainment value of the contest than face reality.

I witnessed Woody Island go from some sand in the ocean to a forward operating airstrip and naval port in real time for an entire year. If you don't understand why this is such an important development for US relations with not just China, but all of Asia

I thought the whole story was just an excuse to buy more astronaut ice cream from Lockheed Martin. You're saying it isn't?

[Skykid]

In fairness to quash I think he's made his argument rather well and rather clearly, regardless of whether or not you agree with his views. His reasoning is fair, based on what he hopes to get from a Trump presidency.

Either way they're all farmyard animals and it's going to be a delightful clusterfuck whoever is sworn in.

[quash]

I thought the whole story was just an excuse to buy more astronaut ice cream from Lockheed Martin. You're saying it isn't?

You just won comment of the thread, and you just won it hard.

But in all seriousness: the entire military, and especially the Navy, is in penny pinching mode right now. Sequestration has done a hell of a number on readiness.

The Navy is even considering pushing off adoption of the F-35 until well after everyone else, and instead upgrading the Super Hornet platform even more in the meantime. A plane that, as of right now, has fewer replacement parts available than it's ever had, with no end to the drought in sight.

As much as military contracts leave much to be desired in terms of cost effectiveness and ROI, skimming off the available funding for pre-existing contracts wasn't a particularly good way to fix that. Especially when you consider that by 2018, the military spending apparatus will be back above pre-sequestration levels, and our issues will likely be as bad, if not worse.

The reason I bring this up is because the arms race with China has been brought to something of a halt. They can't match our capabilities in any arena and won't for some time, but their countermeasures are up to speed with our current abilities. Go look up the DF-21D and tell me everything's fine.

[BryanM]

The F-35 is a piece of shit that's the very model of crony corruption.

Over $1300 for every man woman and child in the country spent on something that would never be used in a real war.

Selling the turds we have in stock to Mexico will make our military stronger and Mexico's military weaker. Win/win.