yoink

I think there’s a problem when people dismiss outright racism from a world leader as ‘just being stupid’. To me it read as if the president thinks that anyone who isn’t white and disagrees with him can’t possibly be American. From https://www.ushmm.org/learn/introduction-to-the-holocaust/path-to-nazi-genocide/chapter-3/from-citizens-to-outcasts-1933-1938 “The goal of Nazi propaganda was to demonize Jews and encourage Germans to see Jews as dangerous outsiders in their midst.” Now lets make it relevant to today: ”The goal of Trumps propaganda is to demonize Immigrants and encourage Americans to see Immigrants as dangerous outsiders in their midst...’ it’s not a million miles away, is it?

Dude. Performance related pay for all footballers would be AMAZING. As a Brit I’ve long complained about the salaries of football players.

The problem is that Trump will see this as a victory. The UK Ambassador got ‘fired’ because of what Trump said... You just know that’s how he thinks this went down so he’ll do the same next time.

Do you honestly think that this attitude is a company wide one??? The title of this thread is ‘fuck starbucks’, not ‘fuck this guy’.

This was overblown - but it was overblown by both sides. You can’t tell me that you don’t think that Trump didn’t secretly want a parade of tanks going down Main Street saluting him? He’d have had an erection the entire time! I think the problem is that military parades ordered by a leader are typically a hallmark of dictatorships, and with Trump buddying up to Kim Jong Un and Putin it’s hard not to draw parallels. That’s why it was blown out of proportion. Fortunately, checks and balances created a compromise. One which was overblown by the far left in this case.

They’ve just re-released a smoked bacon shoulder sandwich. With some HP Sauce it’s vaguely OK. Ish. Sort of. But then what do I expect? It’s mass produced fast food and coffee. It’s never going to be better than average for someone with any experience. But that doesn’t make me hate it.... I’m pretty foody but sometimes I still fancy some McNuggets, even though I know they’re utter shite. Sometimes it’s just what I want. I don’t get the hate for Starbucks. Yeah, if you’re into coffee then it’s total crap in the same way that a Big Mac is crap if you’re into burgers, but it seems like it’s trendy to bag on stuff like this. Its fast food. If you don’t like it just don’t buy it. Why the hate?

An event like this I can totally believe thousands being in attendance specifically for the presidential address then melting away quite quickly. Props to the logistics and planning team. If your on Trump’s side you take the photo halfway through his speech for maximum impact and if you’re against you do it maybe 20 minutes before or after for a similar reason. Neither are ‘fake’ but they’re certainly biased.

I’m working on the design for some new university buildings at the moment and one of the systems going in is ‘gunshot detection’. In a school. Why doesn’t this situation seem insane to everyone?

This comes across as a bit of a cop out to me. In fact it comes across as a massive cop out. Really, how many people are going to watch an episode then go online and listen to what’s been changed? It’ll be tiny percentages - everyone else will just go with what the tv said. This is just maximum arse-covering. If it’s difficult to do the narrative properly then get a better writing team or don’t do it at all.

I don’t think so. If these were normal times you’d hopefully be right, but ironically I think RonD has the right of it on this one. This isn’t politics any more. It’s war. At least that’s how a lot of people see it. And in that case it comes down to a simple us vs them mentality. This next election isn’t going to be decided on issues of any sort. It’s going to be completely emotional, chock full of dirty accusations and cries of ‘FAKE NEWS!!’. It would be fascinating to watch from abroad.

Personally I'd like to see a stronger stance on immigration than they typically have, but not the 'BAN ALL THE PEOPLE' current one. A more fiscally conservative general platform would be good given that our debt has ballooned - having someone with an actual understanding of global economics would be good, as would not seeing absolutely everything as a zero-sum game. I suspect we don't need to spend quite as much on the military as we currently do. Particularly if we reduced the frequency we seem to piss off entire races / religions / countries by feeling the need to get involved in absolutely everything. That combined with the societal freedoms the left stand for would be a good balance for me. Be as gay or as religious as you like. Just don't force any of that on other people - and yes, that includes abortion. Let people do the fuck what they want with their own body. Leave gun control and healthcare as it is for now, broken or not. Those are the ultra-polarizing policies that have driven this self destructive period of elections. I think it's more important to stabilize the government and to start getting people to trust their leaders again, as well as to make Americans realize in general that we CAN and DO actually agree on some stuff. Not everything needs to be us vs them. This whole fake-news, shit-slinging, celebrity style of government needs to be lanced first. That, for me, would be a great centrist position.

The DNC still don't accept their culpability in utterly fucking the last election. It's always someone else's fault. If they actually put up a half decent moderate they'd walk it, but they've become too ideological to contemplate that. The most recent elections have rewarded ever more extreme right and left views and so that promotes ever more of the same.

I don't think anything has changed. 'Less bad than Hillary' will simply become 'he's not a Democrat' as the excuse to re-elect him. We've pretty much completely lost policies meaning anything other for election other than the standard single-issue stuff - guns / healthcare. Voters in the states that matter will come out to vote for Trump just as a 'fuck you' to the Democrats / Liberals.

Not really? It may be a cultural thing I’m not getting. First priority - stop the shootings of innocent kids and workers en mass. That’s the low hanging fruit so it makes sense to target that first. If as a result it becomes more difficult over time for a gang member to shoot another gang member then that’s a bonus. They’ll just go and stab each other instead but it’s much harder for Joe Public to be caught in the crossfire by a stray drive by knifing, in that case. But I do see you didn’t get my earlier point about gun rights advocates ALWAYS using a fringe case to avoid any sort of developmental discussion... Thanks for rather neatly proving why I’m absolutely right about giving up posting stuff in here though. I find it an utterly pointless and frustrating exercise.

I love the idea that this somehow finds itself being watched by Trump who completely misses the point and instead believes it's real and starts frothing at the mouth. That mental image makes me very happy.

Edit: In Reply to Coreece, because I can't copy paste quotes. I have never advocated for an outright ban. Somewhere in this monster of a thread I've made a number of suggestions on how gun control might be implemented from crowd-sourced social reporting and monitoring to technological implementation that simply prevents a weapon being used in any non-approved area and others My preferred solution would be for a technology that would enable a gun you own to be fired on your property or any registered firing range by default but would simply be disabled everywhere else unless you apply for a permit to use it in a specific location at a specific time (if you wanted to go hunting, for example). This would (over time) drastically reduce not only mass murders by irritated co-workers and depressed teenagers but also the instance of criminals using guns for the cost of you not being able to fire your gun in a public place. If you only use your guns for practice and home defense then literally nothing would change. In fact it would give you more rights because we could undo the stupid magazine and ammo regulations. Yes. I know the technology doesn't exist right now, but that's because there's no call for it. But if there was will to implement this type of solution the the technology is the easy part. The day-licensing would need to be quick and easy - go online, draw a circle where you want your gun enabled and it gets reviewed by a human. If it's in a reasonable hunting or open area it's approved quickly and if it includes a school it gets denied and you get a visit from the sheriffs. No solution will ever be 100% effective or solve all of the fringe cases. No solution will be quick or cheap to implement. Any solution MIGHT have unintended consequences, but a lot of pro-gun advocates use those reasons to dismiss any potential change out of hand. That's why I've given up on even discussing it.

Would you willingly accept ANY change that limited your rights to own and use a gun in some way?

Yup. I thought about posting, but really, what’s the point? A while ago I asked people here what they considered an acceptable cost for their 2nd amendment rights were - was it worth the cost of x mass shootings a year? What if it involved a neighbor? Or a family member? IIRC only riggerrob answered directly. From that I worked out that for staunch supporters of gun rights this isn't something that can be discussed or argued rationally, at least to me. It's as much a belief as any religion is. That's why I just don't 'get' it - It's not a logical position in how I frame my world view. They may not say it out loud, they may not even internalize it, but I suspect that many of them wouldn't change their stance even if it were a close family member involved. Once you make that leap then it's obvious - no matter how well I construct an argument, or how eloquently I argue it there is NO chance I will change their minds. Absolutely none. If the death of a family member won't do it then what chance would my words have? It's talking for the sake of it. So that's why I've given up lamenting about the latest mass killing on here. It'll keep happening and the only recourse we have is hope. Hope that big number theory keeps me and my family safe.

Fair enough. I appreciate the reply. I agree that there always seems to be some avenue for argument in law, so this petition representing a belief of an interpretation is a fair comment. I think that at some point for an individual an external situation has to sway from ‘that’s just a couple of guys wishing something’ to ‘wow, a LOT of people are saying this - maybe there’s something to it’. If their belief aligns with yours the critical number to reach that mental tipping point will be very low, and vice versa if you hold a different position. I think that there are some people in here for whom that number will approach infinity though... At this point I’m almost less concerned about impeachment (not that I was ever for it) or prosecution than a clear answer so that maybe next time SOME Trump supporters might get behind someone else. I have no problem with a Republican being president. I DO have an issue with a proven mass liar and potential criminal being re-elected. I think conservative voters deserve a better option.

Yeah - this new quote system needs some work. A while ago Bill said: "Update - now over 800 former federal prosecutors have signed the letter making it clear that Trump obstructed justice to try to hide his misdeeds." You rightly replied that it might be politically motivated. That people are speaking out about something is probably mostly politically motivated. You wouldn't get 800 professional prosecutors speaking out if it was about someone less notorious. BUT, that doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of their statement. Either there was obstruction of justice according to law, or there wasn't.

Couldn't you accept that it might be both?

We already have merit based immigration. It’s called the visa / green card / citizenship process.

She's young and inexperienced when it comes to this level of politics and scrutiny, and because of that she's some making mistakes on HOW she's getting her points across. She's publishing things as though they were jokey throw-aways on an internet forum - like the whole 'getting rid of airplanes and farting cows' nonsense. Most people got the sarcasm that time, but super conservatives like you deliberately misrepresent it in order to score political points and purposely devalue the rest of the message. It's pretty pathetic. She'll learn to communicate better soon I suspect and then you'll be fucked.

Or 120 characters. We like our reality like baby food. Bland, easily digestible and mass produced, served in very small spoons.

I bet you a thousand dollars neither of these things happen.