The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

Good relationships are only possible if ALL parties desire them. There are many situations where that isn't possible. If it isn't, it's best to be the guy with the most bombs.

Should the world have tried to have "good relationships" with 1939 era Germany? Or modern day ISIS?

*Cough* Appeasement *Cough*

[Nirude]

More police deaths in US unfortunately.. RNC should be very interesting tomorrow. The protests are going to be insane from what I hear.. or maybe the Soros-funded groups will pull out as they must realize by now they are only helping get Trump elected.. doubt that though.

[SoulReaver]

Maybe they know better than to ask.

if even they can do it take example

You seem to avoid answering questions as much as Trump avoids providing details...or the truth.

cept I'm not the one agreeing with Trump

That's because "White Person" is an actual contemporary term used in today's society in the US...unlike terms like "commoners" which isn't used in contemporary society here in the US...or anywhere actually.

how do temporal considerations make one question any less absurd than the other?

As for "Class" that could mean anything from the kids that shared the same classroom as I did in my fifth grade music course to an archetype to a segment of a social hierarchy (which can vary based on context).

and 'white person' can also mean an albino or someone who paints themselves white

Like I said, that would require Mexico level of corruption or Area 51 with aliens level of conspiracy. You can ask Annoyed to help you find the right fit for your tinfoil hat.

actually all it takes is for the defendant's union to "influence" (to put it mildly hehe) the jurors, easy peasy. or that still sound too alien?

And how common is that? And what are the legal repercussions of that? What are the requirements for that? What has happened when such a "power" has been invoked? What is the actual (based on actual data and not blind Marxist assertions) likelihood of it?

the fact that it's happened & is legal poses no problem?
how common is terrorism? # terrorists among the population? negligible right? then why is terrorism a problem? why legislate on it? (same logic)
also doesn't your system also allow a defendant to choose to be tried by a judge alone

No, it means he becomes an accomplice...they're DA's not Monarchs who can't be touched. In either case, the governors/voters can always remove them.

back 2u: how often does that happen?
the POS who sided with Diaz Zeferino's killers for instance, was he punished? removed?
also

no risk he has "full immunity"

a bit of reading up on your own system & you'd have known that
btw this ain't in Area 51 it's in your country :|

[garhkal]

More police deaths in US unfortunately.. RNC should be very interesting tomorrow. The protests are going to be insane from what I hear.. or maybe the Soros-funded groups will pull out as they must realize by now they are only helping get Trump elected.. doubt that though.

Yea, first woke up at 1210am and clicked on the news and saw the horror in Baton Rogue.. I wonder, if they get the other 2 supposed suspects, will THEY get charged with hate crimes?

[Falcon Horus]

Good relationships are only possible if ALL parties desire them. There are many situations where that isn't possible. If it isn't, it's best to be the guy with the most bombs.

No, that's true, but it's very naive of you to think the US could just take Turkey if it wanted to. You'd be the reason WWIII started if that would happen. And who wants that honor anyway...

Should the world have tried to have "good relationships" with 1939 era Germany?

Germany didn't invade Poland until september 1939 -- however Hitler was in charge much earlier than '39.

However, considering the world economy was on its butt around that time, the US had other fish to fry then to worry too much about Germany and its plans to commence the cleansing of Europe and the installation of the new Arian Empire - .

Or modern day ISIS?

LOL!! You'd have better luck talking to a fly than to the cannonfodder of Daesh.
Also, they aren't a country. They're a branded terrorist organization by much of the Western and Eastern world. And they brought it upon themselves (the civilians they oppress on the other hand, they're in a bad spot).

[SoulReaver]

I wonder, if they get the other 2 supposed suspects, will THEY get charged with hate crimes?

depends - were the victims born 'blue'?

[Falcon Horus]

Yea, first woke up at 1210am and clicked on the news and saw the horror in Baton Rogue.. I wonder, if they get the other 2 supposed suspects, will THEY get charged with hate crimes?

C'est Baton Rouge, monsieur.

Anyway... they'll get shot before they get charged, don't you know.

[Gatefan1976]

So...do they have these religion tests for aspirants to political office in Australia?

You usually don't miss the point so much Tood.
His religious beliefs do not prevent him from being the pick, nor have they.
Does that mean people won't take them into account when they vote, or read the platform planks of the party he is representing?
Nope.

[Annoyed]

You usually don't miss the point so much Tood.
His religious beliefs do not prevent him from being the pick, nor have they.
Does that mean people won't take them into account when they vote, or read the platform planks of the party he is representing?
Nope.

Is there something wrong with a citizen including a candidate's religious views into their list of attributes they want to evaluate a candidates with?

[Gatefan1976]

Is there something wrong with a citizen including a candidate's religious views into their list of attributes they want to evaluate a candidates with?

No.
I believe I just said that.

[aretood2]

if even they can do it take example

I doubt you understood what I meant.

how do temporal considerations make one question any less absurd than the other?

Well, the fact that the US does not operate under any sort of feudal system, the term Commoner is simply not applicable. You might as well be talking about Elven racism in the US...it makes no sense. Since, you know, there are no elves.

and 'white person' can also mean an albino or someone who paints themselves white

But that's not how it is used in the US to describe a group of people, not at all. Commoner on the other hand is not used in the US to describe anyone.

actually all it takes is for the defendant's union to "influence" (to put it mildly hehe) the jurors, easy peasy. or that still sound too alien?

So unions are mafias involved in egregious levels of jury tampering? Wow...and I thought Garhkal and Annoyed were a little out of it when it came to unions.

the fact that it's happened & is legal poses no problem?
how common is terrorism? # terrorists among the population? negligible right? then why is terrorism a problem? why legislate on it? (same logic)
also doesn't your system also allow a defendant to choose to be tried by a judge alone
back 2u: how often does that happen?

So once again, not answering questions. Terrorism is less common in the US than violent crimes, even less common when you through sex crimes into the mix. The number of terrorists in the population is statistically negligible. Terrorism is a problem because the number of victims can be higher, but I am not one to run around like Chicken Little saying that the sky is falling and then demanding the end of civil liberties/rights in the name of safety. Your questions are based on a strawman. I for one don't want legislation taking away our rights in the name of safety in such rash terms. It doesn't take much radio chatter, or planing to run over a mob of people with a truck. I even question the efficacy of TSA. Sure they'll keep guns off planes and possibly knifes/daggers...but the level of security needed for that is much less of what they are doing.

I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions.

the POS who sided with Diaz Zeferino's killers for instance, was he punished? removed?
also a bit of reading up on your own system & you'd have known that
btw this ain't in Area 51 it's in your country :|

You tell me. Who made the decision(s)?

Prosecutorial immunity doesn't apply in your hypothetical scenario.

[Annoyed]

So unions are mafias involved in egregious levels of jury tampering? Wow...and I thought Garhkal and Annoyed were a little out of it when it came to unions.

Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with unions IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. It is only in the government sector that I have objections.
If a private company makes a deal with its unions that makes the company unable to supply competitive products to its customers, I can always go buy that product from another company. This keeps a lid on union demands, in most cases.
However, that is not an option if the cost or quality of government provided services is bad. There is no natural brake on union demands of government employees.

[aretood2]

Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with unions IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. It is only in the government sector that I have objections.
If a private company makes a deal with its unions that makes the company unable to supply competitive products to its customers, I can always go buy that product from another company. This keeps a lid on union demands, in most cases.
However, that is not an option if the cost or quality of government provided services is bad. There is no natural brake on union demands of government employees.

I'll admit, Unions are a double edged sword. But I also feel that they can be managed if dealt with properly. In the end, not having them in the public service sector can be just as bad as having all powerful unions.

Now Bill Maher isn't my favorite person and there's a lot I disagree with him. But (for clarification for Soul and his constant incinsent strawman) he dose closely mirror what I feel regarding the whole police issue. It's not a class issue, it's a cultural issue.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXvVnvQOMQ0

[mad_gater]

Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with unions IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. It is only in the government sector that I have objections.
If a private company makes a deal with its unions that makes the company unable to supply competitive products to its customers, I can always go buy that product from another company. This keeps a lid on union demands, in most cases.
However, that is not an option if the cost or quality of government provided services is bad. There is no natural brake on union demands of government employees.

unions were better when all they did was essentially act as mediator between workers and management, helping to hammer out a contract that both parties could live with

nowadays the main problem with unions is that they became far too entrenched in the political field and thus those in union jobs nowadays tend to be enslaved to the political whims of the union fat cats

[Gatefan1976]

As some of my Aussie friends would say, Fair dinkum mate..

Please, shoot them.
Fair dinkum is an expression of honesty, not agreement, so please, send them to that place "upstate"

But yet, looking at the # of people who have been wrongly put on a no fly list (including one senator apparently cause some dork fat fingered the name wrong), they were all for a no fly-no buy law?

The no fly no buy concept was a joke as well. Never mistake the fact that I complain about what the right does more somehow means that I think the left is much better sometimes. I complain about the right more, not because the left is not stupid, but that the right is frakking stupid. It's a level above stupid, it's self destructively moronic. If you need proof of that, look at the current "happy destruction" of the establishment right by people who FINALLY realised that the party they voted for, for decades was screwing them. The left was telling them that for decades, but no, they would not listen, it came from "some democrat"
Now that they see it, they will grab onto anyone, -ANYONE- who promises them something better, and right now, that is a thin skinned, shallow, ignorant, should have been wiped on the curtain STAIN like Trump, who does not care about them in the slightest, but makes them "feel good" about being selfish and judgemental in an age where we are more connected than ever.

Which i hate the NRA for.. There's one thing to be against rules that make it harder for people to legally buy a gun, then there's another to be against gathering Statistics..

Tough, you bought the crap, pay for it.
Of course, you don't actually pay for it, it's the nice scape goats like blacks and Latino's you have set up to pay for it who do, so you still maintain a nice little "buffer"

Are you on about things like big bro-big sis, and the like?

Err, What?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree there.

Then you are a fool.
If I put a freeze on you buying a gun for 2 weeks, you can still get your gun after those 2 weeks.
If I put a freeze on you getting an abortion for 2 weeks, and it now becomes illegal, you can no longer legally get an abortion.
How the HELL do you compare the two??
At BEST, you can argue that the 2 week ban -might- give you time not to want to put a cap in someone's arse, but if you still want to, you can get the gun. The two weeks might allow a woman to change their mind about an abortion, but stops them from "still LEGALLY getting the gun" in the end.
One denies a legal option, one merely delays it, and if you think that they are the same, you are stupid.

But isn't that being a 'end run' around gun restrictions? We can't legally stop you buying guns, but we will just make it expensive as hell for you to buy the ammo to USE those guns...

So what?
If the gun means so much to you, you will find a way to get the money.

Also where are all the libs at, who consistently whine about poor minorities being disenfranchised? Is THIS sort of law not one that is disenfranchising poor folk?

No, it's not.
Again, if you see them as the same, you are an idiot.

Also, why is owning a gun something 'sinful' that needs to get taxed?

"Sin tax" is not a cover for "a sin", it is taxing someone for their choices that are not needed.
No private citizen -NEEDS- a gun, but it is given to be a "right" by the right.
ALL citizens -NEED- education, but the right considers it a privilege.

Can you not see how mind numbingly DUMB that is?

Those who want them for protection, have had at one time or another someone close to them who HAVE been mugged or robbed, or assaulted. So they want it so THEY don't become a victim.
The preppers, want it to protect their prepps if/when the inevitable breakdown happens.. Now ONE I will admit is dumb, since HE preps cause of his fear of the "coming zombie apocalypse... All the others i can understand as what THEY fear might happen is a lot more reasonable (loss of the power grid from hackers, the economy collapsing etc).

In other words, they are afraid.
ALL of them.
So their fear has the -right- to trump anyone elses right to life, liberty or freedom.
(sorry, that's the D.O.I., not the constitution)

Sure. here are several links explaining it..

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/15451/

http://townhall.com/news/around-the-...ampus-n1753535

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/30/li...-speech-video/

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedo...g-shouted-down
Heck, this one, even went into a conservative speaker feeling like he needs to hire his Own security cause he can't trust Campus security..
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/conse...llege-campuses

I asked for people who were not racist to begin with, all of these are.
Gratz, the speaker in your first 3 articles took the university to court based on "unfair affirmative action" on the basis she lost her position in the university because of the "20 bonus points for minorities" based under the point system for admission. She may have had a case, EXCEPT for the FACT that the University in question -did not adopt such a system- until 3 YEARS after she was rejected.
Whoops................
As for the last guy, He is known for being connected to white supremecists, Considers American history "the history of white MEN" and has problems with Harriet Tubman being on the 20 dollar bill because of it.

These are not people with a point to make, they are racist, self important pricks, and calling them out on it is not intolerant, but a statement of FACT. If kids don't want to listen to butthurt white people, that's not "ebil liberalism", it's "you are full of crap, and I will treat you as such."
Or, are you willing to say that being passed over for a non existent system is the same as the being passed over for centuries because you are black?