The Political Discussion Thread

[thekillman]

Of course she is.

Really, I have no problem if the Dems choose to run Oprah in 2020. They will simply be handing the election to Trump or Pence. The vast majority of males that I know and many women as well dismiss Oprah as just a daytime talk show host, right up there with Dr. Phil or the crew from The View. Here's a hint for the Democrats. Working class people, at least males, have very little respect for these shows or the people on them.

And democrats seem to agree:

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...en-and-sanders

You were barbecued 30 seconds after you walked in here. You expect politeness?

Yet to find a politics thread that was polite for more than just a few posts at a time. Really, this is probably the tamest yet.

[Annoyed]

Yet to find a politics thread that was polite for more than just a few posts at a time. Really, this is probably the tamest yet.

Agree with you I do.
There are very few boards that allow free speech from all parties where the participants maintain civil behavior. You see an occasional lapse into personal insults and such, but I have no problem with that. On the whole, the participants here behave exceptionally well.

[Womble]

[QUOTE=Falcon Horus;14610322
I'm honestly more concerned with DumbTrump doing something incredibly stupid that'll be the end of us all, then Putin this very moment.

Seriously, we really don't worry about things like Russia coming with a military force or whatever. I got better things to do (like paying my speeding ticket -- woops).[/QUOTE]

So did people in the 1930-s.

Just observing that your country's history of doing well under various conquerors is not exactly something to brag about. And inability to defend one's country from even a marginally potent threat does not grant one the right to condemn other countries for investing into their military.

[Falcon Horus]

Just observing that your country's history of doing well under various conquerors is not exactly something to brag about. And inability to defend one's country from even a marginally potent threat does not grant one the right to condemn other countries for investing into their military.

We're so freakin' small -- there's 10 million or so of us, about half would be army-ready at any given time I would reckon.
Seriously, Belgians are not concerned with such matters. What happens, happens... we'll figure it out then, or not.

[Gatefan1976]

Who said they're not accountable? They are accountable to their readers or audience. If their audience decides they are not to be believed, they will lose that audience and go the way of the dinosaur.

Do you not see how that plays into bias confirmation?
You would willingly sacrifice truth for whatever load of crap makes you feel better.

[Falcon Horus]

What describes trump as being unstable?? That he speaks his mind without a filter?

Changes his mind about something as many times as a normal person changes his underwear every day.
Can't tell right from left, and vice versa. Remember that time he walked passed his own motorcaid.
Ranting on twitter -- that nuclear button rant was just... so grown-up.

Can't drink from a bottle without holding it with both hands (that's more a physical problem than a mental one).

Unless, you are of the kind that ignores all that then why bother asking the question.

That might be true Mr Tood, but we on the right don't seem to resort to violence to stop views we disagree with.. NOR do we willfully censor it out.

Really?

Remember this from Charlottesville over the summer:
"One person was killed and 19 were hurt when a speeding car slammed into a throng of counterprotesters in Charlottesville, where a "Unite the Right" rally of white nationalist and other right-wing groups had been scheduled to take place."

And one fine article for you, about left and right defining free speech to their liking: The right shuts down free speech, too

AND HOW is wanting to do that, wanting to abolish the 1st amendment?

Wasn't that in relation to libel-law, which Trump can't change because they are state-laws and not federal.

Now that said, i don't think she would have gone for the nuclear option, but she imo WOULD have pushed for conventional war.

No, she wouldn't have. Nobody would have. You just like to think she would have.
She's a tad smarter than that.

And in how many countries, is their idea of the public voting "VOTE FOR ME OR DIE"??

Usually only in countries ruled by tyrants and dictators.

BUT how many other countries does as much as we do? In 99% of the world's natl disasters, which country darn nearlly always is first to render aid? THE US.

A bit on the ignorant side, are we?

Dozens of countries offered help after Hurricane Katrina. After Harvey, not so much.

Accepting Disaster Relief from Other Nations: Lessons from Katrina and the Gulf Oil Spill

How much do we give n aid to so many countries? HOW MANY of them reciprocate when WE need aid? VERY few.

*sound of a buzzer*

Wrong!

The U.S. foreign aid budget, visualized
Article from october 2016

And IMO that should STAY a privilage of being a citizen. NOT extended to every tom, dick and harry that comes to this country.

And I think you would be surprised to know the right to vote is linked to being a citizen, or naturalized citizen.

Straight from the voter registration website for US elections:
Who CAN Vote?

You can vote in U.S. elections if you:
* Are a U.S. citizen
* Meet your state’s residency requirements. You can be homeless and still meet these requirements.
* Are 18 years old on or before Election Day. You can register to vote before you turn 18 if you will be 18 by Election Day.

Who CAN’T Vote?

* Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents
* For President in the general election: U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories
* Some people with felony convictions. Rules vary by state. Check with your state elections office about the laws in your state.
Some people who are mentally incapacitated. Rules vary by state.

...there are some who feel it should be made mandatory.

Probably because they live in places where it is mandatory, and people fought bloody hard to gain the right to vote.

We have the right to vote, and voting is mandatory. That is, we are mandated to show up at the voting places, to walk into the booth and walk out. What you do inside the booth nobody cares about? Vote, don't vote, start coloring the page (although most of us are by computer these days) or whatever else you want to spend 5 minutes doing in there.

No idea, BUT if its not the all mighty spaghetti monster...

He's pagan.
And if I ever found the love of my life, I'll at least know a guy to perform the ceremony.

How exactly did trump Rig the national vote??

He didn't -- the Russians might have.

So you don't see NK, China, Iran and Russia as a big threat then?

China is on the rise and with the Trans Pacific trade deal off the table, stepping into the US' place at the negotiating table, expanding their economic might across the Pacific (and their little artificial islands too).

Iran is not so much a thread, as long as someone doesn't go about stepping back on a deal that was made to send them on the "right" path.

Russia's always been the opponent of the US, and that's not going to change. It's big, and bulky, and has the power to do whatever it wants. Has no responsibility to anyone.

North-Korea -- now there's a country that got the short end of the stick with Kim Jong-Un and relatives. But how about we stop poking the hornests' nest and acknowledge that Kimmy wants to be seen as great and powerful. That his people are suffering and starving. Perhaps these talks between north and south with regards to the Olympic Games (looking forward to those) might actually yield something positive.

And if you note, ALL those accusers and stories about him, seemed to disappear VERY QUICKLY.

Not as quickly as you might think though: Woman who accused Roy Moore of unwanted sexual contact sues him for defamation

I agree. i am tired of the whole "Regime change/nation building crapola.. JUST GO IN and blast the enemy away, then leave.

Mmm... here we have another violent American who cares not about civilian live or the consequences of such actions.

The left railed about how POOR of a candidate trump was, cause he had nO experience. Neither does Oprah.. SO WILL they rail about how unqualified She is? OR cause she is THEIR pick, she's all good..?

Might I remind you of the opinion piece I linked to in reply to someone else's post.
They do care about someone with experience.

Personally i am surprise 'who is marrying whom' being such a big deal is bunk.. WHY should we care who "HARRY" is marrying?

Well, the royal family is a very popular family in the UK and apparently also hot in the US. They love royals.

Already done. Though to ME that is stupid. Where's HER right to free speech?

No, that's what happens when you marry into the family of the Head of State of the United Kingdom. They are forbidden to talk politics, sway one side or the other (neutral ground), to endorse one side or the other. Those are the rules they have to abide by.

Moore on the other hand, had some of the evidence against him debunked.

Not according to FactCheck.org:

Q: Did Roy Moore accusers “Mary Lynne Davies” and “Harley Hannah” lie? Did Beverly Young Nelson admit she “forged” a yearbook message from Moore?

A: No. The first two names are not among Moore’s accusers. And Nelson said she added a date and location to a yearbook message written by Moore.

Who would ever get into a trade deal that didn't benefit THEM??

Not how trade deals work -- they generally benefit everyone in the deal.

Couldn't obama's handing over BILLIONS to our enemy (Iran) have been seen as high treason?

If I remember correctly, Obama was handing Iran back the money they took from them.

Why the U.S. Owed Iran That $400 Million

"the money was part of a separate negotiation over funds the United States has owed Iran since its 1979 Islamic Revolution.

At that time, Washington froze Iranian assets in the United States, including money paid by Tehran for military hardware that the United States never delivered after its ally there, the shah, was overthrown. In 1981, the two countries agreed that a tribunal at The Hague would adjudicate the legal claims.

The United States and Iran have wrestled with this issue for decades, but efforts to reach a settlement intensified once the two sides began work on the nuclear deal. Tribunal decisions are binding, and the administration concluded it would lose at The Hague; in addition to $400 million, Iran was seeking billions of dollars in accumulated interest.

The United States was not the only country facing a legal defeat with Iran. Earlier this month, Switzerland’s highest court ordered Israel to pay Iran around $1.1 billion plus interest in a dispute over an oil pipeline company that was set up in the 1960s.

The $400 million plus interest, totaling $1.7 billion, that the United States agreed to pay was far less than what Iran was demanding. While the asset negotiations were separate from the negotiations over the nuclear program and the release of the detainees, all three issues came together in a carefully choreographed push that many hoped would set the stage for more constructive relations between the two nations."

Kind of like how golfers go "On the back nine!"

Annoyed missed your post explaining back 40 but caught it in BlowitUpistus post. Thanks for the explanation.

And who do we blame when Driverless cars start crashing?

In the USA, and everywhere else, the manufacturer of course cause it can't be the fault of the non-driver.

Not really, when yoyu consider we have baptists, catholics, mormons, pentacostiles etc.. All IMO muddying things up.

Yes really. Christianity encompasses all of those. Same with Islam -- that too has many different subsettings.

Trying to be polite. BUT i see that is almost a foreign concept around here.

There's no need to add the Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. -- we generally don't mind being called by our usernames or when getting really familiar with one another, you'll see us use short forms of each others names.

Falcon or FH, whichever you want to use. Or Lemming, but that's probably for insiders only who have been here on the boards long enough to understand its meaning.

Deleting it isn't getting punished though.

He got investigated by the Secret Service -- fully cooperated too.

[Gatefan1976]

FH, my priesthood credentials are a little rusty, but it would be my honour to oversee your declaration of troth.

[Annoyed]

In the USA, and everywhere else, the manufacturer of course cause it can't be the fault of the non-driver.

LOL!
You really don't understand lawyers, do you?

[Gatefan1976]

LOL!
You really don't understand lawyers, do you?

You missed her sarcasm I think.

[Ian-S]

Once, back in the mid 70's, I traveled approx. 30 miles on a freeway without conscious knowledge of it.
To this day, I have no idea what happened. I was suddenly 30 miles out from where I had been, on the same freeway. It could not have been effects of alcohol, I had not yet acquired a taste for it. Hadn't even started smoking at that time.
I was driving a temperamental '60's era muscle car at the time, and I had traveled the entire time on a freeway, presumably 60-ish MPH or so, so I certainly had the ability to drive; I wasn't screwed up. But I have no memory at all of that 30 min. or so.

Which is in stark contrast to how I drive. When I'm behind the wheel, I enjoy focusing upon the task at hand; controlling the vehicle, keeping tabs on the vehicles around me, planning escape routes as well as paths around slower drivers. It's kinda my "zone" so to speak. So how I could have gone 30 miles with no memory of it is a complete mystery to me.

You zoned out. I'm sure you know who Jimmy Johnson is, I once saw an interview with him about racing at Martinsville and he said most times, he barely remembers 95% of the race because it's so easy to zone out there once you are in a relaxed rhythm.

I beg to differ. But I will admit I'm a special case. (shush, jelgate)

I have been riding and working on motorized vehicles since the age of 5. I started AMA sanctioned motocross racing by the age of 10 or 11. For me, motor vehicles are as second nature as breathing. My parents did this with my siblings as well. As a result, all of us have excellent skills behind the wheel. You never forget skills learned that young. And in hindsight, it's something else I have to thank them for.

Do you really think a computer is a better driver than I am?

Yes, I'm a special case. But even for the average motorist, I think the ability to think, the human mind's ability to improvise in a pinch gives us a huge advantage. If cybernetics eventually develop to the level of something like ST:TNG's Data, yeah, I might rethink this. But until the day comes that machines can think, as humans can, I don't want them controlling 2 ton motorized missiles.

Depends on the circumstances:

Yes, the computer is faster than you, if little Johnny ran out into the road the computer would sense that and apply the brake before your brain had computed there was a kid in the road, granted this system only works in certain circumstances, and you might avoid the kid yourself without it, but on that day you're tired, feeling under the weather or distracted by a passenger talking to you or a loony leftie ranting on the radio, wouldn't it be good to have it as backup?

No, on a road you know, have driven thousands of times, the computer probably wouldn't be better than you in a sprint race from one end to the other, safer? Most likely, but you didn't ask whether it was safer.

Question... Do you drive a car with an automatic gearbox? Have one which switches the lights on when it gets dark? Have a car with indicators (turn signal)? Have sonar reversing? ABS? Traction Control? How is that level of computerised automation any different from a sensor looking forward that can see an object in your path and brake before you've even seen said object?

I hate the idea of automation in cars, but even I can see there benefits.

[aretood2]

Once, back in the mid 70's, I traveled approx. 30 miles on a freeway without conscious knowledge of it.
To this day, I have no idea what happened. I was suddenly 30 miles out from where I had been, on the same freeway. It could not have been effects of alcohol, I had not yet acquired a taste for it. Hadn't even started smoking at that time.
I was driving a temperamental '60's era muscle car at the time, and I had traveled the entire time on a freeway, presumably 60-ish MPH or so, so I certainly had the ability to drive; I wasn't screwed up. But I have no memory at all of that 30 min. or so.

Which is in stark contrast to how I drive. When I'm behind the wheel, I enjoy focusing upon the task at hand; controlling the vehicle, keeping tabs on the vehicles around me, planning escape routes as well as paths around slower drivers. It's kinda my "zone" so to speak. So how I could have gone 30 miles with no memory of it is a complete mystery to me.

I've zoned out a few times on my regular commutes, as in muscle memory taking over...but I have never gone anywhere that I didn't intend to. Sometimes I am heading somewhere that uses the same general path as a commute I make and end up missing my turn because I automatically follow my commute route instead of my intended one, but I almost immediately take note and turn around. It has never happened when I am on roads that I don't travel often on. But I am conscious the whole time, I know what I was thinking about or listening to, it's just that the turns and stops and such ended up not making it clearly into my memory.

Anyway, when that happens, that means your driving is being used by lower brain functions, it's preprogrammed actions. A computer would be much the same. I just don't see what's so hard about programing that in a computer. Don't get me wrong, I am the first to criticize people who think we are ready to recreate the human mind in a computer (We are nowhere near that...considering we don't even understand how the human mind works) but the simplistic tasks of everyday driving...that's simple.

The vast majority of accidents are caused by humans who knowingly make bad choices. A computer can't make choices, it will always drive at the speed limit and reduced speeds when required to. It will always yield to traffic when it should. It will always maintain safe distances. It will never tailgate, or make risky lane changes. It will always make complete stops and will never try to beat a yellow light. If anything, accidents might just decrease. It's the unforeseeable accidents that may increase, but we'd end up seeing a net decrease in accidents overall. Obviously, no matter how intelligent a computer is, it can't do anything about the idiot who decides to ram his/her car into it.

You zoned out. I'm sure you know who Jimmy Johnson is, I once saw an interview with him about racing at Martinsville and he said most times, he barely remembers 95% of the race because it's so easy to zone out there once you are in a relaxed rhythm.



Depends on the circumstances:

Yes, the computer is faster than you, if little Johnny ran out into the road the computer would sense that and apply the brake before your brain had computed there was a kid in the road, granted this system only works in certain circumstances, and you might avoid the kid yourself without it, but on that day you're tired, feeling under the weather or distracted by a passenger talking to you or a loony leftie ranting on the radio, wouldn't it be good to have it as backup?

No, on a road you know, have driven thousands of times, the computer probably wouldn't be better than you in a sprint race from one end to the other, safer? Most likely, but you didn't ask whether it was safer.

Question... Do you drive a car with an automatic gearbox? Have one which switches the lights on when it gets dark? Have a car with indicators (turn signal)? Have sonar reversing? ABS? Traction Control? How is that level of computerised automation any different from a sensor looking forward that can see an object in your path and brake before you've even seen said object?

I hate the idea of automation in cars, but even I can see there benefits.

Well, drive assist is what we will see soon enough. But after that, it won't take long for trucks to be automated. They won't lose control because of sleep deprivation and don't need to stop 8 hours each day for sleep...can save money there and might even make up any loss in liability claim.
So then, what happens to the drivers? To the factory workers? When protectionism makes everything cost more, and they are all losing their jobs to Wall-e and trade breaks down because of retaliatory tariffs?

[Falcon Horus]

FH, my priesthood credentials are a little rusty, but it would be my honour to oversee your declaration of troth.

I don't mind rusty.

LOL!
You really don't understand lawyers, do you?

I have one in the family -- no, make that two. One who practiced criminal cases, and the other will graduate this year or next year but has no intention of practicing law other as a lawyer.

But I was, as GF mentions, being a little sarcastic.

However, Tesla did have a case on their hands with a driver crashing his car in auto-mode into a tractor trailer and he died --> Tesla’s Self-Driving System Cleared in Deadly Crash

[Annoyed]

I have one in the family -- no, make that two. One who practiced criminal cases, and the other will graduate this year or next year but has no intention of practicing law other as a lawyer.

But I was, as GF mentions, being a little sarcastic.

However, Tesla did have a case on their hands with a driver crashing his car in auto-mode into a tractor trailer and he died --> Tesla’s Self-Driving System Cleared in Deadly Crash

Did either of them practice financial and corporate law in the US? That system is not quite sane.
But, as a practical matter, think it through.

The product is a self-driving car. It is advertised as being able to drive itself.

There will be accidents, including fatalities if these things come into widespread use. Some percentage of these accidents will be the fault of the self-driving car/truck or avoidable but not avoided by it.

There will be liability claims (cue the ambulance chasers). If the laws are written to allow the manufacturers to be held liable, the lawsuits will kill the industry. Bankrupt it. I doubt that anyone would want to start 8 run a vehicle company under such a threat.

So that leaves liability in the lap of the operator. The daily commuter, or the trucking company. Ethically, they aren't liable, the were not required to be operating the vehicle. (If the things require an operator, what's the point?)

How many people or trucking companies are going to sign up to be liable for screwups by the vehicle?

Who is liable when they screw up? As I said, these are going to be a legal nightmare. There is only one sure thing about it, and that is that the lawyers will make a ton of money over it.

[Annoyed]

No, on a road you know, have driven thousands of times, the computer probably wouldn't be better than you in a sprint race from one end to the other, safer? Most likely, but you didn't ask whether it was safer.

And safety doesn't come under the heading of better?

Question... Do you drive a car with an automatic gearbox? Have one which switches the lights on when it gets dark? Have a car with indicators (turn signal)? Have sonar reversing? ABS? Traction Control? How is that level of computerised automation any different from a sensor looking forward that can see an object in your path and brake before you've even seen said object?

I hate the idea of automation in cars, but even I can see there benefits.

Automatic ****** 'cause they didn't make this model with a stick. I prefer a stick shift. Most of the cars I've owned have been sticks. No automatic headlights. Of course it has turn signals, they've been required for over 50 years. No Sonar. It has both ABS & Traction control, but both of those systems can be switched off when desired.

[Coco Pops]

So how would World War 2 have ended if Germany instead of Japan had been nuked?