QueenZone discussion #1460536

Panchgani wrote: Gary Johnson ... the libertarian candidate. Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson

Panchgani wrote: Gary Johnson ... the libertarian candidate. Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Panchgani wrote: Gary Johnson ... the libertarian candidate. Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson

John Oliver pretty much nailed why Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are as much of a bad choice as Clinton or Trump. They are indeed much cleaner in terms of scandals, and they have some great ideas, but some of their proposals just don't make sense. link

Mr.Jingles wrote: I understand why people don't trust Hillary Clinton, but at this point I'd rather take a dishonest person who admits she has fucked up, than the asshole who is always blaming someone else for his fuck ups, or is proud to screwing other people.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump.

ParisNair wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump.

You are the one who has written paragraphs on Trumps ills and for Hillary all you have to say is "she is no saint". Mr. Jinlges also behaved in exactly the same way. It is you guys who are taking the selective approach, shamelessly too. As far as accepting allegations are concerned, I'd rather trust Wikileaks than the lop-sided corrupt sold out media any day.

ParisNair wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump.

You are the one who has written paragraphs on Trumps ills and for Hillary all you have to say is "she is no saint". Mr. Jinlges also behaved in exactly the same way. It is you guys who are taking the selective approach, shamelessly too. As far as accepting allegations are concerned, I'd rather trust Wikileaks than the lop-sided corrupt sold out media any day.

Donna13 wrote: Good question. My favorite quotes from this election (just from my memory): Michael Bloomberg, regarding Donald Trump: "I'm a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one". Peggy Noonan on Hillary: She said that Hillary Clinton's irritating speaking style during speeches reminded her of her NY landlord yelling at the kids: "Get your bikes out of the hallway!" Or something like that. As usual, I am too lazy to look up the exact quotes. It's going to be Hillary, I'm afraid.

Donna13 wrote: Hillary's speaking style was terrible, but not disqualifying. My opinion is that she didn't do enough to articulate her vision. If I could have advised her, I would have told her to never mention Trump at all; but to stay positive and talk about her vision and plans for the direction of our country - giving specific ideas about how to fix problems. But it might have been pointless for her to give a good speech. There were already too many factors going against her (charges of corruption, hiding evidence, being "above the law", and misleading Americans during her time as Secretary of State).

Donna13 wrote: Hillary's speaking style was terrible, but not disqualifying. My opinion is that she didn't do enough to articulate her vision. If I could have advised her, I would have told her to never mention Trump at all; but to stay positive and talk about her vision and plans for the direction of our country - giving specific ideas about how to fix problems. But it might have been pointless for her to give a good speech. There were already too many factors going against her (charges of corruption, hiding evidence, being "above the law", and misleading Americans during her time as Secretary of State).

ParisNair wrote: For instance, while Trump used every terror attack anywhere in the world during the campaign to his advantage, Hillary stuck to her "Islam means peace" statements, which the common man has had enough of.

Oscar J wrote:

ParisNair wrote: For instance, while Trump used every terror attack anywhere in the world during the campaign to his advantage, Hillary stuck to her "Islam means peace" statements, which the common man has had enough of.

You keep coming back to that, yeah. You forget to mention that more people in the US die from toddlers with guns than from islamic terror. But if "common man" means racist simpleton, sure, you're right. 52 percent of Trump's supporters rate blacks as less evolved than whites. Furthermore, 38 percent of USA's total white population rate black as less evolved. There are no excuses for this shit, it's just appalling.

Oscar J wrote: ... 1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/ "From 2005 to 2015, 71 Americans were killed in terrorist attacks on US soil. 301,797 were killed by gun violence during the same period. [...] In 2015, on average, a toddler in America shoots someone about once a week." 2. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_majority_of_trump_supporters_surveyed_described_black_people_as_less.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_bot

ParisNair wrote:

Lets address the elephant in the room. Trump won on the topics he picked up namely - Build the wall - Restrict Muslims from entering USA - Repeal Obamacare

Panchgani wrote:

... 1.  That hysterical opinion piece is based on cherry-picked data from one year (2015) where 21 people were killed by toddlers versus 20 killed by terrorists.  The study fails to mention the Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016 (50 deaths) or the 9-11 attacks in 2001 (3000+ dead). 2.  That biased ultra leftist liberal rag is incapable of conducting credible research. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/

Oscar J wrote: You keep coming back to that, yeah. You forget to mention that more people in the US die from toddlers with guns than from islamic terror.

Oscar J wrote: But if "common man" means racist simpleton, sure, you're right. 52 percent of Trump's supporters rate blacks as less evolved than whites. Furthermore, 38 percent of USA's total white population rate black as less evolved. There are no excuses for this shit, it's just appalling.

Oscar J wrote: "Irrespective of whether that's a true statement or not, it is for sure false equivalence. Two totally different issues. There are also many other ways in which people die, and in larger numbers - car crashes for instance. So if I talk about the issue of car crash and you bring in the menace of, say, suicides, or drug overdose, you will appear stupid." The sentiment wasn't that toddlers are dangerous, it's that terror attacks are extremely rare, so rare that you are just as likely to be shot by your own baby. And you're hundreds of times more likely to get shot by American Joe Average on the street.

Oscar J wrote: "Far far greater proportion of Muslims consider non-Muslims (especially polytheists, idol worshipers and other pagans) to be inherently ugly and dirty and worthy of being wiped off the face of the earth." Far far more than 38 percent? Far far more than 52 percent? Sounds like utter rubbish to me.

Panchgani wrote: Actually Trumped "flipped" Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania based on protectionist trade rhetoric. *** *** Disclaimer:  I did not vote for Trump.

Oscar J wrote:

1. And oh my god, you're right. Terrorists are in 2016 almost twice as dangerous to Americans as toddles. God help us. But then toddlers had already killed 23 people in Jan-April 2016, so it'll be very exciting to see if they can fight back and take the win again in 2016.  Nice hyperbole My point being that you are on average 500 - 1000 times (!) more likely to be killed in USA's huge gun violence than in a terrorist attack. I agree 

Not to mention how likely you are to die in diabetes or heart diseases, your own lifestyle and the one you force upon your children likely killing millions of Americans each year.  More hyperbole

Fear of terrorist attacks in the US is completely irrational, but Trump did a great job exposing and using that fear. I agree 2. Since you do not believe statistics from media with different political stance from your own, here's an article in USA Today, supposedly fairly neutral according to your source:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/27/poll-black-prejudice-america/1662067/

ParisNair wrote:

"That makes it all the more important to tackle the issue today, when (accordign to you) it is a small issue, than wait till it becomes a bigger beast."

"Far far greater proportion of Muslims consider non-Muslims (especially polytheists, idol worshipers and other pagans) to be inherently ugly and dirty and worthy of being wiped off the face of the earth." Far far more than 38 percent? Far far more than 52 percent? Sounds like utter rubbish to me.

Oscar J wrote: There's nothing that suggests islamic terrorism will ever become a bigger beast in USA. They should focus on tackling real problems instead.

Oscar J wrote: Second of all, do you actually equate "somewhat unfavorable" or even "very unfavorable" with " inherently ugly and dirty and worthy of being wiped off the face of the earth."? I'm sorry, but that would make you an idiot. And if you'd read on in your own source, the same muslim population goes on to say that they consider Judaism to be the religion most prone to violence. You don't think the unfavourable views on Judaism could come from the violent conflicts in the middle east, do you?

Oscar J wrote: I don't even know why I am trying to reason with someone who obviously has very unfavorable views on muslims. Especially since you've just enlightened us with the true meaning of the phrase "unfavorable".

Jesme wrote: We, are truly screwed ....

Jesme wrote: We, are truly screwed ....

Panchgani wrote: Trump is a threat to LGBTQ rights? link

  "No, they're not ISIS videos."

My mistake then.

"I'm not an alarmist or a propagandist. "

Hmm. " That makes it all the more important to tackle the issue today, when (accordign to you) it is a small issue, than wait till it becomes a bigger beast. " Textbook alarmism. 

" Far far greater proportion of Muslims consider non-Muslims (especially polytheists, idol worshipers and other pagans) to be inherently ugly and dirty and worthy of being wiped off the face of the earth. 

And you have been known to use amateur video footage as anecdotic evidence for proving points about Muslims before: link "But, I finally get it. No matter what you see or hear, the left liberal mentality is so so ingrained in your mind that you are blind to different views and information. You are more comfortable in your assumptions and notions than any facts."

YourValentine wrote: Anti Semitisn, male supremacy, lack of respect for Non-Muslims among Muslims is really a huge problem. In my country sexual attacks committed by new Muslim refugees dominates the whole refugee discussion and eats into the readiness of people to accept refugees. Not to mention terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks committed by fairly newly arrived refugees.

YourValentine wrote: This has to do with the Trump election because such incidents arouse the latent racism in ANY country and feed the racist minority who tries to end all liberal politics. Right-wing populist parties are on the rise in almost all European countries and endanger the whole EU. Walls have already been built in Hungary, Croatia, Macedonia in order to keep the refugee "stream" out of the EU. We really have to regroup and address the protest in our population or else we will end like the USA: deeply split and hostile. Certainly Trump will do nothing for the white workers but he might build his power on feeding the hatred and inciting racism, racial hatred and xenophobia like all fascists do.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Fourth, and possibly the most awful of all, is that 60+million Americans voted for this guy either in spite of, oblivious to or because of his hateful rhetoric. He has successfully brought bigotry, misogyny and white nationalism into the open. These deplorables, as Hillary Clinton called them, who voted for him feel empowered now and have been out in force harassing people already. And people are afraid.

ParisNair wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Fourth, and possibly the most awful of all, is that 60+million Americans voted for this guy either in spite of, oblivious to or because of his hateful rhetoric. He has successfully brought bigotry, misogyny and white nationalism into the open. These deplorables, as Hillary Clinton called them, who voted for him feel empowered now and have been out in force harassing people already. And people are afraid.

You're either kidding, or blind to the riots by Hillary supporters. Why would you not mention it at all?

Oscar J wrote:

if we don't have to deal with comparatively minor issues in our "refugee crises".

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Because my comments had nothing to do with Hillary or her supporters, but with trump and what his win in this election means to my country, and possibly the world. Since I am talking about her supporters now, I'll say I fully support everyone's right to protest, but I think anyone who engages in violence or destruction belongs in their own basket of deplorables. The difference, in this context, however, is that Hillary Clinton didn't present or encourage that behavior, while trump clearly did - repeatedly and without apology.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Panchgani wrote: Trump is a threat to LGBTQ rights? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/politics/donald-trump-gay-rights.html

I said: "Third, an ultra-right, anti-everything government now rules all branches of our government. LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, health care, senior care, clean air, the Supreme Court...will all be fucked over in short order." So, yes, with all combined, I believe the threat to LGBTQ rights, and all others mentioned above, is very real. A slight glance at his VP pick, alone, would clarify that.

ParisNair wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Because my comments had nothing to do with Hillary or her supporters, but with trump and what his win in this election means to my country, and possibly the world. Since I am talking about her supporters now, I'll say I fully support everyone's right to protest, but I think anyone who engages in violence or destruction belongs in their own basket of deplorables. The difference, in this context, however, is that Hillary Clinton didn't present or encourage that behavior, while trump clearly did - repeatedly and without apology.

I missed news of violence by Trump supporters after the election. I'm surprised why they would do it after having won!

ParisNair wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Because my comments had nothing to do with Hillary or her supporters, but with trump and what his win in this election means to my country, and possibly the world. Since I am talking about her supporters now, I'll say I fully support everyone's right to protest, but I think anyone who engages in violence or destruction belongs in their own basket of deplorables. The difference, in this context, however, is that Hillary Clinton didn't present or encourage that behavior, while trump clearly did - repeatedly and without apology.

I missed news of violence by Trump supporters after the election. I'm surprised why they would do it after having won!

Panchgani wrote:

Oscar J wrote:

if we don't have to deal with comparatively minor issues in our "refugee crises".

... Like last New Year's Eve in Germany? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve/ "Halina Wawzyniak, a lawmaker from the Left Party, told The Washington Post last week that immigration issues and sexual-assault cases should not be linked, as refugees could end up facing a "double punishment" by being deported." Criminal refugees should not be deported???  ... Get real.

ParisNair wrote: far far greater proportion of Muslims the world over consider Jews to be sub-human. Far far greater proportion of Muslims consider non-Muslims (especially polytheists, idol worshipers and other pagans) to be inherently ugly and dirty and worthy of being wiped off the face of the earth.

ParisNair wrote: Thanks for bringing this back on topic. I don't think you are really screwed. I don't think the President makes any policy decisions all by himself. His more extreme and radical promises are probably never going to be kept by him - those were just election rhetoric. IMHO.

ParisNair wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Fourth, and possibly the most awful of all, is that 60+million Americans voted for this guy either in spite of, oblivious to or because of his hateful rhetoric. He has successfully brought bigotry, misogyny and white nationalism into the open. These deplorables, as Hillary Clinton called them, who voted for him feel empowered now and have been out in force harassing people already. And people are afraid.

You're either kidding, or blind to the riots by Hillary supporters. Why would you not mention it at all?

Panchgani wrote: Most of the violence is from ultra-radical Clinton supporters ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/11/violence-erupts-in-portland-riot-as-anti-trump-protests-continue-in-cities-across-the-nation/

Oscar J wrote: The late Richard Rorty, important american philosopher, foresaw this happening in 1997: "Members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots…. One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion…. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet. "

The Real Wizard wrote:

ParisNair wrote: Thanks for bringing this back on topic. I don't think you are really screwed. I don't think the President makes any policy decisions all by himself. His more extreme and radical promises are probably never going to be kept by him - those were just election rhetoric. IMHO.

Turns out you may well be right. http://usuncut.com/politics/trump-obamacare-repeal And so it begins.

Oscar J wrote: ^ Nah. They might be losing support at the moment, but I don't see the values "dying" (not even sure a value can die?). I just think liberals have to change their tactics from name-calling and shaming to actually discussing the issues. Start debating, provide facts. Burst myths, enlighten people. Because more often than not, facts and science are on their side.

ParisNair wrote: Being unhappy is one thing. Calling for changing of the system just because you lost, is behaving like a bad loser.

ParisNair wrote: The change that Bill Maher was asking for, was dismantling the EC. I don't think it is sound logic that because Hillary won the popular vote so she should be president. It is not so simple. If the allegations of fraud did not disqualify Trump from running for President, then it should not be used as cause for disqualifying him from becoming President. The killing of Afrcan-Americans by none other than cops in uniform did not prompt anyone to coin the phrases "Obama's America" or "Obama's Cops". I agree that Trump's election rhetoric and language has emboldened the "extreme elements" in American society. But it is a fact that a lot of these folks did vote Democratic earlier and swtiched to Trump this time. By not looking into what made them change their mind, and instead dismiss them as simply racist and such won't help.

Panchgani wrote: "And if California slides into the ocean. Like the mystics and statistics say it will." ... Trump would win the popular vote by about 2,000,000 votes. If only LA county was excluded from the voting results, Trump would have won the popular vote by 200,000 votes. If the "granola" vote is excluded, Trump wins the popular vote... http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president http://jokes.cc.com/funny-insults/p2b17c/californians---granola-bars

The less educated voted for Trump, just like they voted for Brexit. That is not to say that the educated didn't also vote for Trump - they did. But it's not them who got him elected.

Costa86 wrote: If you take away his racism, his proto-fascism, and his climate change denialism, he'd almost be a semi-presentable president. Almost.

What's more interesting is why you think it's important to make these distinctions. Is discrimination of religious groups, nationalities, women etc. somehow acceptable as long as he isn't "racist" by your definition?

Day dop wrote: If by "they" - the "less educated", you mean the working class who've been shafted to the point where they have nothing to lose, then it's understandable they'd be willing to take a risk on a leave vote, rather than more of the same when they can't even afford to buy new clothes for their kids.

The Real Wizard wrote: As long as people are properly educated, chances are they will find work in a field that's relevant today. 5 of the top 7 jobs today did not exist a decade ago - and they're all in IT. There's a reason why the US is trailing behind most of the developed world in this regard - the poor education system. Immigrants absolutely are taking the jobs - because they're more educated and more qualified. The US is going to suck for a few decades, and the uneducated white people will die off, kind of like attrition in the workplace. Educated people will come in from elsewhere, and in time things will be fine. The empire will have long crumbled, and they'll no longer be the superpower they once were (hell, that's already the case now). But the country will be functional - just like the UK. But for now, we're watching the system that sustained people for a couple hundred years start to slowly fall apart, and it's not pretty.

Panchgani wrote: I am not so sure that the US or UK will be OK. Asia will be OK. Asian students are preferred by the University of Illinois - Urbana because they are willing to pay the full $50,000 per year price tag. In the Engineering and Business colleges, only the top 5% of American high school have good enough test scores to qualify for entry into University of Ilinois - Urbana

The Real Wizard wrote:

Panchgani wrote: I am not so sure that the US or UK will be OK. Asia will be OK. Asian students are preferred by the University of Illinois - Urbana because they are willing to pay the full $50,000 per year price tag. In the Engineering and Business colleges, only the top 5% of American high school have good enough test scores to qualify for entry into University of Ilinois - Urbana

Those Asians aren't in Asia - they're in the US. How does that somehow mean the US won't be OK? It just means the successful ones won't be a white majority anymore. Does it ultimately matter that the demographic of successful Americans is changing to different skin colours?

Panchgani wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

Panchgani wrote: I am not so sure that the US or UK will be OK. Asia will be OK. Asian students are preferred by the University of Illinois - Urbana because they are willing to pay the full $50,000 per year price tag. In the Engineering and Business colleges, only the top 5% of American high school have good enough test scores to qualify for entry into University of Ilinois - Urbana

Those Asians aren't in Asia - they're in the US. How does that somehow mean the US won't be OK? It just means the successful ones won't be a white majority anymore. Does it ultimately matter that the demographic of successful Americans is changing to different skin colours?

...  There are not enough asians to offset the general educational decline in the US (particularly in math and science).

The US is going to suck for a few decades, and the uneducated white people will die off, kind of like attrition in the workplace.

ParisNair wrote:

The US is going to suck for a few decades, and the uneducated white people will die off, kind of like attrition in the workplace.

If a certain POTUS (or his supporters) had said this or something similar, they would be called all kinda names.