Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Pinned
    • Discussion
    The War Room III: From British Invasion to British Implosion
    • Lucretia wrote:

      it is the case, the usa signed and ratified the human rights convention

      people have a right to seek asylum, and it is fundamentally immoral to suggest seeking asylum and then being imprisoned for it and dying is the fault of asylum seekers

      no, it is the fault of donald trump and his genocidal immigration policy
      I completely agree but, and I'm just asking, has something like this happened with some presidents in the past?
    • goronmario wrote:

      basically every us president is shitty on immigration. Trump is just open about it.

      Obama deported more people in 2013 than trump did this year
      Isn't that only because immigrants are having a harder time getting in this time around? lol
      I remember someone saying that same bullshit about Net Neutrality
    • Can I just say that I'm liking Sullivan right now? I've been reading about the remarks for the Flynn sentencing and by the sound of it he might deviate from government/mueller suggestion of no jail time for Flynn and incarcerate him anyway.
      Honestly; good. It's about time someone made a call showing that just because he's cooperating with the investigation now doesn't mean he shouldn't still suffer the consequences for what he's done in the past. The guy committed treason and they're arguing for him to walk... how does that show any sort of justice? He basically had no choice but to cooperate imho. I hope that Sullivan holds his position and gives an appropriate sentence. And from reading about other cases he's been involved in, he seems like a fair judge - at least more fair than most in the headlines currently. Regardless, the sentencing will come and it'll be interesting to see what comes out of it and what this means for the future of the investigation.


      "Defense against the dark farts, am I right?" -Pennington
      | This spot reserved for Dark Link Reigns |


    • Keyaki wrote:

      goronmario wrote:

      basically every us president is shitty on immigration. Trump is just open about it.

      Obama deported more people in 2013 than trump did this year
      Isn't that only because immigrants are having a harder time getting in this time around? lol I remember someone saying that same bullshit about Net Neutrality
      The loss we took on Net Neutrality was a massive one. of course it's years off but combined with the forming of monopolies and the jumbo-tronning of companies into conglomerates it's really not hard to imagine that a service provider could very soon have the power to redirect you from the information source or platform you wanted to see to another information source or platform.

      Lady Sunshine wrote:

      Can I just say that I'm liking Sullivan right now? I've been reading about the remarks for the Flynn sentencing and by the sound of it he might deviate from government/mueller suggestion of no jail time for Flynn and incarcerate him anyway.
      Honestly; good. It's about time someone made a call showing that just because he's cooperating with the investigation now doesn't mean he shouldn't still suffer the consequences for what he's done in the past. The guy committed treason and they're arguing for him to walk... how does that show any sort of justice? He basically had no choice but to cooperate imho. I hope that Sullivan holds his position and gives an appropriate sentence. And from reading about other cases he's been involved in, he seems like a fair judge - at least more fair than most in the headlines currently. Regardless, the sentencing will come and it'll be interesting to see what comes out of it and what this means for the future of the investigation.
      Since we're not in an ongoing war declared by Congress, it is actually impossible for Flynn to have committed treason.

      Since treason is well known to be the grand-all betrayal people throw it around often but there hasn't been a single treason case in America since WW2 because we haven't had an actual war declared by Congress since WW2.

      That said, Flynn is the worst type. If we were at war with Turkey or Russia. many of the things he has been accused of would qualify as treason. I'm afraid of him walking for what are major crimes because he snitched on people that won't ever be charged because of what you could call "executive privilege".

      Mike Flynn is only a few degrees of separation from Trump and so I'm not sure if Mueller can move much further without the levees breaking
      You don't cure cancer by feeding it

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Nite and Deigh ().


    • Can't say I'm a huge fan. If people thought the dirty politics on Clinton was bad, it's already started with Warren, before she even announced her run. While I'm more for progressive policies (healthcare for all, climate change/renewables, etc), we need to ease into it. My state (Missouri) lost a Democrat senator to a newbie with little experience, and there's sadly some clear backlash against the more progressive policies (most basic medical marijuana just barely passed in 2018). Warren strongly pushes for said policies, and will undoubtedly be part of her core platform. Really think that's going to alienate support away from centrists. As I said, we need to ease into the progressive policies. Start with 1 or 2, show that they work, and then move on to the next 1 or 2. Sadly the American populace is deathly afraid of change, which is what the policies on the Democrat agenda encompasses. While I would definitely vote for her over Trump, I think if she wins the primary, we will see another 4 god-awful years of Trump (unless the P.O.S. dies or is impeached, which is unlikely).

      Also not to mention, Ginsberg is getting older, and has had quite a few hospital visits recently. And now that the Senate gained some extra seats, it's more likely that they'll push someone through quickly should she pass, especially since the scum McConnell will undoubtedly use the nuclear option. Were that to happen, we'd have a 6-3 conservative SC, which would pretty much put us on a regressive path for generations...

      I have been checking news about Kamala Harris, as she said she was going to think over a 2020 run during the holiday, and while she has a bit of dirty politics around her (mostly due to her rightful conduct during the different questioning/intelligence sessions), I feel she is a very strong politician who could potentially sway over independents/centrists. The things that will hurt her most are pro gun control, pro choice, and her views on illegal immigration (however Elizabeth Warren goes further with each of those)


      [FONT="Arial"][SIZE="4"]
      Hosting a vanilla server at: direct.kylemc.net
      Dynmap at: kylemc.net/map[/SIZE][/FONT]
    • Missouri, like many other red states that lost centrist democratic seats, had progressive ballot initiatives that won clear majorities. Democrats don't need to run to the right or embrace gradualism, the US electorate is largely center-left and is in favor of progressive policy proposals. The same logic you're using to justify Kamala Harris is the same that the democratic establishment used to justify Clinton over Sanders, which led us to Trump - you can argue that we can't know for sure that a progressive would have defeated Trump (I think it's likely considering that states like Michigan and Wisconsin which Bernie won in the primaries were later carried by Trump in the general), but we tried the establishment option already and so it's time to do something different.

      Warren has a very strong personality that I think will turn out the base, and they simply won't show up to vote unless there's an inspiring candidate and there's something to vote for, rather than against (e.g. Trump).

      The only knock against her is that a couple months ago she showed weakness in playing to Trump's demand that she take a genelogy test to prove her native american ancestry, but I don't think it's something that can or should destroy a presidential campaign (but Trump will berate her relentlessly, which she has to be ready to counter).



      The post was edited 3 times, last by Viajero de la Galaxia ().

    • I also think that purity and perfectionism-or-riot culture should stay firmly the fuck in the cesspool that is the remnants of Tumblr. No one on this despicable planet is a saint (especially all the kid-diddling priests in the catholic church) and it's becoming increasingly easy to dig out the skeletons in everyone's closet due to today's technology and access to information and paper trails. Bernie Sanders has done some questionable things in the past. He was confronted about them as well during his run. People still flocked to him, because despite his flaws he was still a great candidate.
    • ERROR372 wrote:

      Can't say I'm a huge fan. If people thought the dirty politics on Clinton was bad, it's already started with Warren, before she even announced her run. While I'm more for progressive policies (healthcare for all, climate change/renewables, etc), we need to ease into it. My state (Missouri) lost a Democrat senator to a newbie with little experience, and there's sadly some clear backlash against the more progressive policies (most basic medical marijuana just barely passed in 2018). Warren strongly pushes for said policies, and will undoubtedly be part of her core platform. Really think that's going to alienate support away from centrists. As I said, we need to ease into the progressive policies. Start with 1 or 2, show that they work, and then move on to the next 1 or 2. Sadly the American populace is deathly afraid of change, which is what the policies on the Democrat agenda encompasses. While I would definitely vote for her over Trump, I think if she wins the primary, we will see another 4 god-awful years of Trump (unless the P.O.S. dies or is impeached, which is unlikely).

      Also not to mention, Ginsberg is getting older, and has had quite a few hospital visits recently. And now that the Senate gained some extra seats, it's more likely that they'll push someone through quickly should she pass, especially since the scum McConnell will undoubtedly use the nuclear option. Were that to happen, we'd have a 6-3 conservative SC, which would pretty much put us on a regressive path for generations...

      I have been checking news about Kamala Harris, as she said she was going to think over a 2020 run during the holiday, and while she has a bit of dirty politics around her (mostly due to her rightful conduct during the different questioning/intelligence sessions), I feel she is a very strong politician who could potentially sway over independents/centrists. The things that will hurt her most are pro gun control, pro choice, and her views on illegal immigration (however Elizabeth Warren goes further with each of those)
      I am aware that the right wing will attack Elizabeth Warren, fact is they will attack anyone the Democrats nominate because that's their job. They're the opposition, the enemy. If you're waiting for a candidate the right won't attack you'll be waiting a long time.

      As for the popularity of left wing ideas, the polls don't bare this out.

      thehill.com/hilltv/what-americ…ort-medicare-for-all-poll

      A majority of Republicans support medicare for all for instance, the Democrats lose because they don't run on Medicare for all, they run away from it. Claire McCaskell who you mentioned didn't support medicare for all and lost, as did all the right wing (not moderate as their views aren't moderate, they're to the right of America) Democrats lost except for Manchin. And then these losers (specifically McCaskell) go on CNN and talk shit about people who won like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

      Its interesting isn't it, Trump didn't suggested gradualism and he won. He didn't suggest the US plant a hedge on the Mexican border to test the waters and then maybe progress to a fence and then eventually a wall. He campaigned on a wall. Trump didn't slightly tweak the tax code, he took out a chainsaw. Why is it that the left has to campaign on gradualism while the same is never expected of the right? No one ever mentions gradualism in regards to right wing proposals. The left is expected to be weak and meek accepting the crumbs, while the right is expected to take out their sledgehammer and baseball bat. Well its about time the left starts getting some barbed wire to wrap around their bats metaphorically speaking of course and join the fray.
    • How about Tester who is a relatively conservative Democrat who won re-election in Montana? How about Simena is who a blue dog democrat (former republican) that won in Arizona? How about the blue wave in the deep conservative state of Kansas by moderate democrats? How about the fact that the majority of incoming democrats in the House aren’t part of the progressive wing but instead the standard democrat arm?

      Democrats do well when they appeal to their constitutes.

      Running a strong progressive in Vermont or districts in NY works. Running those types candidates in south Ohio and possibly in the presidential race doesn’t.

      The reason MFA is popular now is because the average person is uniformed and once they hear that the only way to pay for it is through higher taxes and prescription drug negotiations, they will back off. Don’t get me wrong, I support MFA but we shouldn’t look too much into the early polling.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by HeroOfTime5 ().