Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,287,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 86 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896 ... LastLast
Results 6,376 to 6,450 of 8309
  1. #6376
    I got bored of that video about half way through.

    So the people that pay for adverts to be shown on videos aren't happy that their adds are shown on random youtube videos. You don't have a right to make money using someones website. I think it's perfectly reasonable (in fact I think it's insane to think otherwise) that a corporation like coke don't want their ads appearing on videos that talk about certain topics. It has nothing to do with not wanting to advertise terrorist videos it straight up wouldn't want advertising on anything to do with terrorism.

    It's like people don't understand the whole point of advertising & branding yet because they are losing money it must be a problem.
  2. #6377
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...y-commitments/

    Instead of the FCC continuing to enforce net neutrality rules, Pai “wants Internet service providers to voluntarily agree to maintain an open Internet,” Reuters reported yesterday, citing three sources briefing on the meeting.

    “To preserve the basic tenets of net neutrality, the plans would require broadband providers to pledge to abide by net neutrality principles such as no blocking or paid prioritization of Internet traffic,” the Journal wrote. “That would allow the FTC to go after violators for deceptive or unfair trade practices.”


    Reuters said that Pai discussed his preliminary plan with “major telecommunications trade groups” but did not identify which ones. "The officials briefed on the meeting said Pai suggested companies commit in writing to open Internet principles and including them in their terms of service, which would make them binding," Reuters wrote.


    Even if these commitments are legally binding, enforcing net neutrality guidelines could become more complicated under the FTC. With the current rules, customers or companies can file a complaint with the FCC and get a decision from the government's expert agency on communications networks, potentially putting a stop to abusive behavior. The FTC uses a different process for enforcing rules. Instead of writing extensive rules and deciding whether an ISP has violated them, the FTC files lawsuits against companies over unfair or deceptive acts or practices, letting a court make the decision.
    This would actually be funny if it wasn't so sad
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  3. #6378
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I got bored of that video about half way through.


    So the people that pay for adverts to be shown on videos aren't happy that their adds are shown on random youtube videos. You don't have a right to make money using someones website. I think it's perfectly reasonable (in fact I think it's insane to think otherwise) that a corporation like coke don't want their ads appearing on videos that talk about certain topics. It has nothing to do with not wanting to advertise terrorist videos it straight up wouldn't want advertising on anything to do with terrorism.


    It's like people don't understand the whole point of advertising & branding yet because they are losing money it must be a problem.

    They took what happened to a handful of videos, and blew it out of proportion. A literal handful of videos; it’s telling when they kept showing the same examples over and over. Because it was truly difficult to find actual examples.


    That where that dude in the AdAge article comes in play. Basically an extortionist, willing to tarnish the name of the brand because they refuse to pay up.


    More importantly, this is a power play. Old media feels cornered. People just don’t give a shit about them anymore. So they have started to wage war against the new media. Youtube is all fun and Ames when it’s about cat videos, but as you can clearly see, it’s political commentators that take the brunt of this over the top censorship and response. If whatever you talk about in your vid is political in nature, boom! Instant demonetization, does not matter the context.


    Also, advertisers look for any excuse to get better leverage in ad deal negotiations.


    No one would ever associate Coca Cola with isis, because it randomly showed up as a preroll ad on a video with 2,000 views. However, Toyota trucks is different, as they have been known to parade around in caravans full of these. No preroll ad needed for that one …
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  4. #6379
    Nothing you've said there is a counter to what I was saying. I'm sure "old media" would very much like youtube gone & I'm sure they love what's happening.
  5. #6380
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Nothing you've said there is a counter to what I was saying. I'm sure "old media" would very much like youtube gone & I'm sure they love what's happening.

    I thought this would

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Also, advertisers look for any excuse to get better leverage in ad deal negotiations.


    No one would ever associate Coca Cola with isis, because it randomly showed up as a preroll ad on a video with 2,000 views. However, Toyota trucks is different, as they have been known to parade around in caravans full of these. No preroll ad needed for that one …
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  6. #6381
    The leverage bit is true (it is for anything though really and isn't that relevant).

    The second bit is just wrong. Advertisers care about the content that they are associated with to neurotic levels. I didn't say it makes a strong permanent link but it does create a link and over time it strengthens that association. This is an association they don't want, so why would they pay for it?

    When something is entirely driven by ads (be that youtube ads or video sponsors) to not think that those ads begin to dictate the content is madness.
  7. #6382
    A good example is wrestling.

    The money they get per view from ads shown in the spot they run is much less than that of other content in general. This is because the content they are producing is something that advertisers wants to be less associated with. Why would this be true if what I'm saying is wrong? It wouldn't be.
    Last edited by Savy; 04-07-2017 at 03:50 PM.
  8. #6383
    It's like what was happening was companies were purchasing ad time because they wanted to advertise on a channel like zoella and instead of just getting their ads run on that channel what was actually happening is they were buying general youtube advertising. As a result smaller channels (no one wanted the ad space for) were able to earn money too.

    Those who were stupid enough to think this was a long term solution and a job for life are now getting screwed over because it turns out companies don't want to advertise on them. Boohoo.
  9. #6384
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Bruh, when I say this

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    No one would ever associate Coca Cola with isis, because it randomly showed up as a preroll ad on a video with 2,000 views. However, Toyota trucks is different, as they have been known to parade around in caravans full of these. No preroll ad needed for that one …
    It's because the chance of that happening is the chance of a total solar eclipse. Translation: 1 in a million.

    It took one dude inventing an algorithm, to catch it when it happens to show it as a shining example of shit going down. And bringing this "evidence" to the WSJ.

    Just as what happened with pewdiepie, these are targeted attacks. This whole ad thing is a non-issue that never happens, and yet they did catch that one unicorn with an algorithm, and blew it completely out of proportion. The thing is not just about YouTube; it's about Google. They are trying their best to take ads away from Google.

    Think about the children!



    More relevant quotes explaining a little more

    However, it’s important to point out that Google hasn’t been idly sitting by.Here are some steps they’ve taken in the past to combat these types of ads and videos on their platform:

    • In 2012, Google removed 640 videos promoting terrorism on YouTube
    • In 2016, Google removed nearly 2 billion scammy ads from their ad platforms
    • Also in 2016, according to Reuters, “…internet companies including Alphabet Inc’s YouTube, Twitter Inc, Facebook Inc and CloudFlare held a call to discuss options, including a content-blocking system put forward by the private Counter Extremism Project.”


    Additionally, as Tien Nguyen, Director of Technology at CPC Strategy pointed out, YouTube takes user feedback extremely seriously and has dedicated staff members who review flagged videos.
    http://www.cpcstrategy.com/blog/2017...d-controversy/
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  10. #6385
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Don't like your particular ad on a particular topic? Just


    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  11. #6386
    It doesn't have anything to do with promoting terrosism, talking about terrorism is the issue for ads.

    Same for loads of topics. Race, LGBT, politics, drama. All things that advertisers have no control over their videos being shown on and they probably don't want to be associated with in certain aspects and if they do they'd like it done in a much more controlled manner than people being able to upload anything they like about it.
  12. #6387
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Don't like your particular ad on a particular topic? Just
    This is the correct way to go about it and I imagine they'll get better and better at it as time goes on and their algorithms get better. It has the exact same effect as I'm talking about though.
  13. #6388
    The concept that anything is going to ruin google when they are an advertisers wet dream is making a mountain out of a grain of sand.
  14. #6389
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    This is the correct way to go about it and I imagine they'll get better and better at it as time goes on and their algorithms get better. It has the exact same effect as I'm talking about though.
    So problem solved, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    It's like what was happening was companies were purchasing ad time because they wanted to advertise on a channel like zoella and instead of just getting their ads run on that channel what was actually happening is they were buying general youtube advertising. As a result smaller channels (no one wanted the ad space for) were able to earn money too.


    Those who were stupid enough to think this was a long term solution and a job for life are now getting screwed over because it turns out companies don't want to advertise on them. Boohoo.

    Ok now see the forest, not the trees.


    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  15. #6390
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    The concept that anything is going to ruin google when they are an advertisers wet dream is making a mountain out of a grain of sand.

    All accounts points to this being the thing. Google is big, so you have to chip away in order to get some slice of the digital advertising pie. In Game of Thrones, Ned's head was the first to go down.

    Make non-issues issues, and then going to advertisers saying "but what are you going to do about it"? These channels getting fucked is just collateral damage in a bigger war
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  16. #6391
    Youtube is overadjusting defensively whilst there is a shit storm going on to ensure that nothing happens whilst this is all being dealt with. It is not in their long term interest to do any of the things stated in the video.

    Good on youtubers for using it as a way to try and get money directly from fans.
  17. #6392
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  18. #6393
    Lol, 'we're gonna protect civilians by bombing the shit out of the country.'

    Inb4 Trump's popularity goes up 20 points.
  19. #6394
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Fuck this.

    Five months. That's all it took

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7675031.html

    Actual WW3 inbound. God damn it all.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  20. #6395
    Those comments from Russia and Iran are intended for a Russian and Iranian audience, just like our comments are intended for American and British audiences. Why would nation states bicker with each other by means of media? If I were a world leader who wished to warn another nation state about their aggression, I would prefer such threats to be carried privately. Unless, that is, I wanted the electorate in my home nation to see how tough I am standing up to America.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #6396
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    A treatise on Fake News

    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  22. #6397
    Where are we talking about the recent "suspected chemical attack"? I can't be bothered to look.

    I'm careful with my words there, quoting directly from the BBC. Interesting use of the word "susupected", considering when we were bombing Syria the other day, it was unquestionable what happened and who was responsible.

    Furthermore, the Yanks say that Russia operated a drone above a hospital where victims were seeking medical care, and hours later it was bombed, killing 80 (more than the chemical attack).

    How interesting that this isn't considered anywhere near as serious as the chemical attack itself.

    Does anyone smell shit?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #6398
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    when we were bombing Syria the other day,
    Where are you getting this *we* shit, limey?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Furthermore, the Yanks say that Russia operated a drone above a hospital where victims were seeking medical care, and hours later it was bombed, killing 80 (more than the chemical attack).

    How interesting that this isn't considered anywhere near as serious as the chemical attack itself.

    Does anyone smell shit?
    Is this your first time observing western policy toward the mid-east?

    Assad, with the help of Russia, bombs people in Syria all the time. That's not even news anymore. Frankly, I don't really even have problem with the government of a sovereign nation using military force to combat armed rebel factions. That actually seems totally appropriate. Where it gets ugly is when it involves civilians, and it's not entirely clear who's a rebel and who's a civilian.

    So why get caught up trying to sort out if it was a hospital full of civilian victims, or a rebel stronghold? Something else is gonna get bombed tomorrow anyway.

    Nobody in the west particularly gives a shit if shiites, sunnis, and whatever else they got over there spend the next 500 years shooting each other. But chemical and nuclear weapons are a problem. If those weapons are in the region, controlled by aggressive factions or unfriendly governments, or are unaccounted for, that represents a threat to the west. Because some of those factions and unfriendly governments have made clear their ambitions to bring that kind of destruction over here.
  24. #6399
    Where are you getting this *we* shit, limey?
    You know as well as I do that the UK is a puppet of US foreign policy.

    Assad, with the help of Russia, bombs people in Syria all the time. That's not even news anymore. Frankly, I don't really even have problem with the government of a sovereign nation using military force to combat armed rebel factions. That actually seems totally appropriate.
    Indeed. It's a matter of national security.

    Where it gets ugly is when it involves civilians, and it's not entirely clear who's a rebel and who's a civilian.
    It's also not clear who's attacking the civilians.

    Nobody in the west particularly gives a shit if shiites, sunnis, and whatever else they got over there spend the next 500 years shooting each other. But chemical and nuclear weapons are a problem. If those weapons are in the region, controlled by aggressive factions or unfriendly governments, or are unaccounted for, that represents a threat to the west. Because some of those factions and unfriendly governments have made clear their ambitions to bring that kind of destruction over here.
    Ah so it's your first time observing western policy in the middle east?

    If you think Asshat actually used Chemical weapons, then you're not very smart. For one, doing so would risk losing Russia, the only reason he isn't already fucked. Secondly, if America did indeed have smoking gun evidence that Asshat did it, then instead of bombing an airfield, they should be talking to Russia. Imagine if Putin was presented with 100% proof that Asshat is using chemical weapons.

    Also, you say shit like the use of chemical weapons is a national threat to the USA, but did you know that USA have plenty of chemcial weapon stockpiles themself? That's a national security threat to everyone else, especially since USA have been arming militant Muslims for decades.

    It took a day for Trump to bomb Syria for the chemical attack. That tells me that he is either reckless (not waiting for absolute proof of both the nature of the incident, and those responsible), a puppet (it wasn't his decision), or just an outright fucking liar. The best motive I can think of it posturing, making sure Russia know that he's capable of pressing the button. And that isn't very good to imagine either.

    Apparently, Putin has said that he has evidence that the Yanks are preparing an attack on Damascus, with the intent of blaming Asshat.

    Can anyone tell me why Asshat would use chemcial weapons, when doing so is of minor military gain, while risking everything? Let's find a chess analogy... he's basically risking forced checkmate to win a pawn. What, does he hope America aren't good enough at chess to see the 5-mover he's offered them? Or does he really really want that pawn?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #6400
    You know as well as I do that the UK is a puppet of US foreign policy.
    Fine, that's the price you pay for getting your ass bailed out of WW2. Your'e welcome. But don't be taking credit for shit you didn't do.

    It's also not clear who's attacking the civilians.
    Not really sure it matters, as there is a tremendous amount of overlap among Syrian rebels, and ISIS. I think the west is content to believe that both sides are to blame.

    If you think Asshat actually used Chemical weapons, then you're not very smart.
    No, if you think Asshat was framed, you're smoking more than weed.

    For one, doing so would risk losing Russia, the only reason he isn't already fucked.
    Maybe he figures that losing Russia is an inevitability now that Hillary lost.

    Secondly, if America did indeed have smoking gun evidence that Asshat did it, then instead of bombing an airfield, they should be talking to Russia.
    Who says we're not talking to Russia? And bombing the airfield seems like an appropriate and measured response. It also gives some 'teeth' to whatever we might say to Russia.

    Imagine if Putin was presented with 100% proof that Asshat is using chemical weapons.
    I'm imagining it. I'm imagining he doesn't care as long as it doesn't start shit with the US. And for the last 8 years, Asshat has been able to use his chemical weapons, and the worst thing that happened was we made him promise, really hard, that he got rid of his chemical weapons. But silly America, we forgot to check and see if he had his fingers crossed when he said that.

    What is Putin supposed to be worried about?

    Also, you say shit like the use of chemical weapons is a national threat to the USA, but did you know that USA have plenty of chemical weapon stockpiles themself?
    So? The problem occurs when they get into the hands of terrorists. Assad is battling rebels who are armed, funded, and control territory where they've won hearts and minds of the people. I wouldn't say that Assad has a 'lock hand' here. If he loses, and the bad guys get the chemical weapons, the whole world is in deep fucking shit.

    It seems far far far less likely that rebels will overthrow the US government and acquire its chemical weapons.

    Kind of a big difference there smokey

    That's a national security threat to everyone else,
    Sucks for them. USA! USA! USA!

    especially since USA have been arming militant Muslims for decades.
    Right, the more they fight with each other, the less they fight with us. Can you imagine if all of these factions figured out that they all worship the same Mohammed, and then united together?

    It took a day for Trump to bomb Syria for the chemical attack.
    Too long

    That tells me that he is either reckless (not waiting for absolute proof of both the nature of the incident, and those responsible),
    What fucking planet do you live on? Can you tell me, how being an unemployed pothead has given you expert insight into how long it should take to verify the source of an attack? And what makes you think that Trump hasn't been presented with this evidence?

    a puppet (it wasn't his decision)
    Whose was it then? And fuck if you if you're about to say 'Bannon'

    or just an outright fucking liar.
    Maybe it titillates your jerk-pole to think about conspiracies where the POTUS fabricates reasons for using military force on other sovereign nations for fun, but here in reality, that doesn't happen.

    The best motive I can think of it posturing, making sure Russia know that he's capable of pressing the button. And that isn't very good to imagine either.
    Why? Demonstrating to Russia that their alliance with Assad is untenable should make them more open to negotiations. It's not like Putin and Assad have some kind of familial bond. If Assad could be replaced with someone that both the US and Russia can get along with, then everybody wins.

    With Assad, Russia holds all the cards. They have all the control and influence in Syria and the US has none. That seems like the worst possible scenario.

    Apparently, Putin has said that he has evidence that the Yanks are preparing an attack on Damascus, with the intent of blaming Asshat.
    Since when is Putin credible?

    Can anyone tell me why Asshat would use chemcial weapons, when doing so is of minor military gain, while risking everything?
    Jesus man, STOP DRINKING BONG WATER

    He's fighting a rebel faction that is armed, funded, and controls territory. We're not talking about some local militia with rifles. His position in his own country is not exactly rock solid. Maybe this was a hail mary (you may need to look up what that means if all you ever watch is the dumb kind of football)

    Or maybe he just figured he could get away with it, like he has before. Maybe he assumed that this attack would have the same outcome as every other attack he's launched....the US does nothing, and Russia gets his back.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 04-11-2017 at 10:44 AM.
  26. #6401
    Fine, that's the price you pay for getting your ass bailed out of WW2. Your'e welcome. But don't be taking credit for shit you didn't do.
    lol shame you don't apply this line of thought when speaking of them Russians. America might have dropped the bombs, but that only stopped the Japanese. Russia and the UK can take the bulk of the credit for defeating Hitler. It really is a shame that we can't use this platform to build better relations with Russia.

    Who's taking fucking "credit"? I'm certainly not. There's nothing to take "credit" for. Shame, maybe. I was actually referring to "we" as "the West", because that's what this machine is. It's more than a nation state, however much you wish it was all about USA.

    Not really sure it matters, as there is a tremendous amount of overlap among Syrian rebels, and ISIS. I think the west is content to believe that both sides are to blame.
    It's not just about who's attacking who, it's also about who's arming who. If the rebels were the ones who used gas, where did it come from? We know where their guns are coming from.

    No, if you think Asshat was framed, you're smoking more than weed.
    Tobacco is making me paranoid?

    Maybe he figures that losing Russia is an inevitability now that Hillary lost.
    This is illogical. I assume you think that Trump is in bed with Putin. I'm thinking recent events show this to be a ludicrous concept.

    Who says we're not talking to Russia? And bombing the airfield seems like an appropriate and measured response. It also gives some 'teeth' to whatever we might say to Russia.
    This is a fair comment. Holy fuck.

    I'm imagining he doesn't care as long as it doesn't start shit with the US.
    He cares because it's bad for his approval ratings at home. Right now, he has almost total support, because he's handling the Syria conflict perfectly from the point of view of the Russian people. He's standing up to America, while taking a moral path that protects sovereignty and opposes terrorism. America, on the other hand, are taking a path that promotes regime change, and supports terrorists who support America's agenda.

    We, the West, do not enjoy the public support for our foreign policy that the Russians do. The only people who do actually support the West's aggression are those consumed by the propaganda. Russians are almost totally supportive of Putin's policy.

    So? The problem occurs when they get into the hands of terrorists.
    Right. And WHO IS ARMING THE TERRORISTS?

    Assad is battling rebels who are armed, funded, and control territory where they've won hearts and minds of the people
    The rebels have won the hearts and minds? Show me.

    It seems far far far less likely that rebels will overthrow the US government and acquire its chemical weapons.
    What? Who said anything about overthrowing the US government? America is more than happy to sell, maybe even give, weapons to anyone who supports their foreign policy. I have no reason to think that doesn't include chemical weapons.

    What fucking planet do you live on? Can you tell me, how being an unemployed pothead has given you expert insight into how long it should take to verify the source of an attack? And what makes you think that Trump hasn't been presented with this evidence?
    I live on planet internet, rather than planet employment. I have a lot of time on my hands. More than you. Therefore I am more qualified than you on these matters, because you're a [enter job title here] who works [enter hours here] every week and doesn't have time to consume any news other than Fox.

    What "evidence" can Trump be given that confirms without any doubt who did what? How is it not reckless to not stop and think "are we being manipulated here?" because that's literally the first thing I would think if I were in his position. The speed in which he attacked has now given a great incentive for rebels to attack civilians, blaming Assad in the process, knowing that trump will knee-jerk and bomb strategic positions. Even if Assad did do it, the rebels are now well place to manipulate the shit out of Trump.

    Whose was it then? And fuck if you if you're about to say 'Bannon'
    Who the fuck is Bannon? I have no idea whose decision it could have been if it wasn't his. Is he being funded? Is he under duress? Does someone have serious dirt on him? Or is the position of POTUS a de facto puppet position because the world is run by unknown elites? Fuck knows. I'm leaning the latter, I blame faceless elites.

    Maybe it titillates your jerk-pole to think about conspiracies where the POTUS fabricates reasons for using military force on other sovereign nations for fun, but here in reality, that doesn't happen.
    lol how fucking naive are you? It wasn't even that long ago when Bush got expsoed using bullshit to use military force. It's SOP. Do you think that we, the people, ever get told the truth when it comes to the reasons why we're at war? Come on man, you try to mock me but you're so naively consumed by our propaganda that you have the same credibility as the MSM.

    Since when is Putin credible?
    Since when is the West credible?

    He's fighting a rebel faction that is armed (by USA), funded (by USA), and controls territory.
    Important bits in brackets there.

    You have way too much faith in the integrity of your own government. Way too much.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #6402
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I live on planet internet,
    <3

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    rather than planet employment. I have a lot of time on my hands. More than you. Therefore I am more qualified than you on these matters, because you're a [enter job title here] who works [enter hours here] every week and doesn't have time to consume any news other than Fox.
    To be fair, he does seem to spend an awful lot of time on this forum during regular working hours. So either his job hours must be flexible like mine, or he's at his desk having a wank and watching Fox news online and complaining about how lazy people shouldn't be rewarded.
  28. #6403
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,201
    Location
    Finding my game
    Lots of fishiness. The airstrikes hit non-critical targets, Russia was warned of them in advance which means Assad was warned in advance, they used tomahawks which are not meant to destroy bunkers or other fortified targets. Trump spent $60 mil to attack a couple broken fighter planes and other stuff that wasn't worth moving out of the way, impact to Assad's military capabilities zero. Still, the attack made it seem like Trump is not in bed with Russia. How convenient.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  29. #6404
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    <3



    To be fair, he does seem to spend an awful lot of time on this forum during regular working hours. So either his job hours must be flexible like mine, or he's at his desk having a wank and watching Fox news online and complaining about how lazy people shouldn't be rewarded.
    Yeah I just wanted to gloat a little because he was trying to insult me. I find it amusing that he finds me being an unemployed stoner as reason to mock me, because it's for this exact reason that I think my life is better than his.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #6405
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Lots of fishiness. The airstrikes hit non-critical targets, Russia was warned of them in advance which means Assad was warned in advance, they used tomahawks which are not meant to destroy bunkers or other fortified targets. Trump spent $60 mil to attack a couple broken fighter planes and other stuff that wasn't worth moving out of the way, impact to Assad's military capabilities zero. Still, the attack made it seem like Trump is not in bed with Russia. How convenient.
    This is probably the most astute observation I've seen on this matter so far.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #6406
    If there's one cure for a president with shitty approval ratings, it sadly appears to be war - at least at first. After it's dragged on with no end in sight for a few years the thrill wears off. Then it's time to exit, rinse, and repeat as needed.

    Edit: What is most annoying to me is how even the President's harshest critics always seem to get behind him when it comes to bombing the shit out of somewhere. I think I even saw MSNBC running a story praising Trump the other day. Good God.
  32. #6407
    maybe. I was actually referring to "we" as "the West",
    FOUL! You don't even play the right kind of football, there's no way we're letting you piggy-back on this one. You redcoats could have fired rockets at Syria any time you wanted. You didn't. So sit on the bench, and shut the fuck up.

    If the rebels were the ones who used gas, where did it come from?
    This question has already been answered. It wasn't the rebels

    Tobacco is making me paranoid?
    Maybe your house has a gas leak. Have you licked any toads recently?

    I assume you think that Trump is in bed with Putin.
    Definitive evidence that pot affects your brain. You're 180 degrees wrong here my friend.

    This is a fair comment. Holy fuck.
    I must have caught you in between bong rips

    He cares because it's bad for his approval ratings at home. Right now, he has almost total support, because he's handling the Syria conflict perfectly from the point of view of the Russian people. He's standing up to America, while taking a moral path that protects sovereignty and opposes terrorism.
    He can do all those things without Assad. I don't think that an association with someone who would use chemical weapons on his own people is good for Putin's approval rating. I doubt anyone in Russia loves the idea of 8 year olds getting attacked with sarin gas.

    America, on the other hand, .... supports terrorists who support America's agenda.
    How did Israel get into this conversation?

    We, the West, do not enjoy the public support for our foreign policy that the Russians do. The only people who do actually support the West's aggression are those consumed by the propaganda.
    So you're saying that anyone who agrees with the government is brainwashed? Are you "consumed by propaganda" every time you cash your unemployment check?

    Right. And WHO IS ARMING THE TERRORISTS?
    Iran

    The rebels have won the hearts and minds? Show me
    Ummmmm, have you heard of this thing called ISIS? It's a "state". It's not like the towns they occupy are all soldiers. It's full of families and civilians. There are schools, mosques, garbage men, etc, all rules by ISIS's strict religious law. It's also been extensively reported that ISIS uses alot of its money to pay families of people killed or injured in US drone strikes.

    Didn't we just have a major outcry of protest against Trump's travel ban on the basis that it will be used as a recruiting tool by the enemy? I believe some people in this very forum, at the time, were railing against the ban saying it makes it easier to radicalize people.

    Now we're saying that they're incapable of influencing public opinion in the territory they control? How high are you right now?

    America is more than happy to sell, maybe even give, weapons to anyone who supports their foreign policy. I have no reason to think that doesn't include chemical weapons.
    That's because you haven't put more than two and a half seconds of drug-addled thought into the question. The fact that chemical weapons are internationally banned and the United States has already eliminated 90% of it's stockpile with the rest to be gone within a decade, seems to have eluded you.

    What "evidence" can Trump be given that confirms without any doubt who did what?
    That's classified. To assume that he has no evidence because he hasn't explicitly stated it, to you, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

    How is it not reckless to not stop and think "are we being manipulated here?" because that's literally the first thing I would think if I were in his position.
    Because the dope resin coating the inside of your skull has made you perpetually paranoid.

    The speed in which he attacked has now given a great incentive for rebels to attack civilians, blaming Assad in the process, knowing that trump will knee-jerk and bomb strategic positions. Even if Assad did do it, the rebels are now well place to manipulate the shit out of Trump.
    It's like you believe Trump is just guessing who did it whenever there is a problem. There are 17 professional intelligence agencies working to secure this information. They have a lot more information than you do on 'planet internet'.

    Who the fuck is Bannon?
    Haven't you heard? He's an adviser to Trump. Or, if you watch CNN, he's the living incarnation of Satan.

    I have no idea whose decision it could have been if it wasn't his.
    Then why speculate?

    Is he being funded?
    He already has 10 billion dollars

    Is he under duress?
    What?

    Does someone have serious dirt on him?
    Not even close to possible. He said "grab 'em by the pussy" and got elected president a month later. He's teflon

    Or is the position of POTUS a de facto puppet position because the world is run by unknown elites?
    Don't you think that if this were true, there'd be a little more order?

    Fuck knows. I'm leaning the latter, I blame faceless elites.
    Smoked yourself retarded

    It wasn't even that long ago when Bush got expsoed using bullshit to use military force
    Inaccurate generalization pounded into your brain by the liberal media. Your susceptibility to this kind of thought control is surprising given your unusually high levels of paranoia and distrust.

    It's SOP. Do you think that we, the people, ever get told the truth when it comes to the reasons why we're at war?
    Just because the Bush administration did a really bad job 'selling' that Iraq/Afghan wars to the public, doesn't mean that it's SOP to lie.

    You have way too much faith in the integrity of your own government. Way too much.
    Better than being cynical, broke, and unemployed
  33. #6408
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Still, the attack made it seem like Trump is not in bed with Russia. How convenient.
    Literally the dumbest thing I've heard a person say on this issue to date
  34. #6409
    This question has already been answered. It wasn't the rebels
    That's depends on whose narrative you're listening to.

    Why should I believe Trump and not Putin? Why should I put my trust in my nation's ally?

    I doubt anyone in Russia loves the idea of 8 year olds getting attacked with sarin gas.
    Indeed, which is why Putin won't support a man who causally uses such a gas in war.

    How did Israel get into this conversation?
    This is quite funny. You think Israel are terrorists? I agree. How then are we not agreeing when it comes to who the terrorists are in Syria? Israel are on the same side as USA, UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia...

    Iran
    *stifles laughter*

    So Israel are terrorists... and so too are their arch enemy? Fuck it, you might be right... everyone's a fucking terrorist.

    So you're saying that anyone who agrees with the government is brainwashed? Are you "consumed by propaganda" every time you cash your unemployment check?
    If you like. Why does this relentlessly come down to my life on benefits? The old "shout insults" trick? How very American of you. You should be a politician, you'd go far.

    Ummmmm, have you heard of this thing called ISIS? It's a "state". It's not like the towns they occupy are all soldiers. It's full of families and civilians. There are schools, mosques, garbage men, etc, all rules by ISIS's strict religious law. It's also been extensively reported that ISIS uses alot of its money to pay families of people killed or injured in US drone strikes.
    Well done for walking right into that one. This point is in reply to me asking why the REBELS have won hearts and minds. Here you explain why ISIS have. Well done for acknowledging that the rebels and ISIS are basically one and the same, well done for noting that the USA, in arming the rebels, are also arming ISIS.

    That's because you haven't put more than two and a half seconds of drug-addled thought into the question. The fact that chemical weapons are internationally banned and the United States has already eliminated 90% of it's stockpile with the rest to be gone within a decade, seems to have eluded you.
    I refer you to my point about you having way too much faith in the integrity of your own government.

    Why would USA stick to its promises, but not Asshat? 'cause you gotta have faith, faith faith, ye-eah faith.

    Because the dope resin coating the inside of your skull has made you perpetually paranoid.
    This might amuse you, it would amuse me if it wasn't wearing thin. Honestly, this is poor debating skills you're demonstrating here. Too often you refer to my weed habit and unemployment. It's irrelevant, entirely, and it also fails to annoy me. You might note that our insult ratios are entirely unbalanced... you're winning by miles. That's how much it effects me.

    Then why speculate?
    Because I'm an inquisitive person and I don't trust government.

    Inaccurate generalization pounded into your brain by the liberal media.
    If by liberal media, you mean a former ambassador who tried to expose said lies and got fired for doing so, then yes, you're right. Although he's not so much a liberal, more a social democrat, but left wing all the same.

    Your susceptibility to this kind of thought control is surprising given your unusually high levels of paranoia and distrust.
    I'm more paranoid about politicians and media than I am whistleblowers who fuck their careers and put themselves at risk.

    Just because the Bush administration did a really bad job 'selling' that Iraq/Afghan wars to the public, doesn't mean that it's SOP to lie.
    Of course lying to the public is SOP. If it wasn't, no way would they have the support they need to remain in power whilst committing these atrocities.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #6410
    Better than being cynical, broke, and unemployed
    I disagree, but I'm glad you feel this way, because it means were both winning.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #6411
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This might amuse you, it would amuse me if it wasn't wearing thin. Honestly, this is poor debating skills you're demonstrating here. Too often you refer to my weed habit and unemployment. It's irrelevant, entirely, and it also fails to annoy me. You might note that our insult ratios are entirely unbalanced... you're winning by miles. That's how much it effects me.
    While I agree with the general sentiment expressed here, I can't help but point out that your use of the word 'effect' is incorrect. You actually mean 'affect', which is the verb meaning 'to impact'. 'Effect' is a noun and generally refers to a consequence of one thing on another.
  37. #6412
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I disagree, but I'm glad you feel this way, because it means were both winning.
    Also the second comma here is superfluous and impedes the flow of the sentence.
  38. #6413
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    While I agree with the general sentiment expressed here, I can't help but point out that your use of the word 'effect' is incorrect. You actually mean 'affect', which is the verb meaning 'to impact'. 'Effect' is a noun and generally refers to a consequence of one thing on another.
    Thank you ong.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #6414
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Also the second comma here is superfluous and impedes the flow of the sentence.
    You're wrong here though. I would pause if I were to say that out loud, so the comma is necessary.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #6415
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're wrong here though. I would pause if I were to say that out loud, so the comma is necessary.
    That would be true if we were meant to write the way we talk, but we're not.

    It's a common myth that a comma in writing is used to indicate a place where a pause might exist in speech. While this situation can often arise by coincidence, the true function of a comma in writing is to separate distinct but related clauses, or to aid clarity. There is no need to separate the second clause into a second and third clause in that sentence because the second clause expresses a single idea.

    First clause:
    I disagree,

    Second clause:
    but I'm glad you feel this way because it means were both winning.

    Whereas it's by no means an egregious error to split the second clause, in a situation such as this in which the presence or absence of a comma does not impact understanding, splitting a clause is considered poor style. Preferable is to maintain flow by allowing the thought to reach its conclusion without being broken by a comma.
  41. #6416
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    While this situation can often arise by coincidence, the true function of a comma in writing is to separate distinct but related clauses, or to aid clarity.
    Actually, the final comma in this sentence is arguably superfluous too.

    Writing well is hard.

    Edit: On second thought, I think that sentence is fine the way it is. Carry on.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 04-11-2017 at 03:50 PM.
  42. #6417
    I've come to the conclusion from this discussion that holding people to a high standard of writing on an internet forum, while admirable in some sense, is ultimately somewhat dickish.

    So I think in future I'll limit the maintenance of these standards exclusively to Ong, given how fond he is of pedantry.
  43. #6418
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I've come to the conclusion from this discussion that holding people to a high standard of writing on an internet forum, while admirable in some sense, is ultimately somewhat dickish.

    So I think in future I'll limit the maintenance of these standards exclusively to Ong, given how fond he is of pedantry.
    It depends on the individuals. I tend to try to practice excellent grammar, and generally appreciate any tips if I make consistent mistakes.

    However, I also appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt if I make a 1-time mistake which is probably more indicative of me typing too quickly and not of a misunderstanding on my part. So feel free to point out any glaring errors in my communication skills. I struggle more than most to effectively communicate and I appreciate the tips.
  44. #6419
    poop trying to outpedant me, haha good luck with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #6420
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    outpedant
    Pretty sure that's not a word, though 'out-pedant' might be considered an acceptable colloquialism.

    Probably better for the sake of the reader is to replace it with 'to be more pedantic than...'
  46. #6421
    I can make words up if they are easy to understand. Engrish is a flexible language.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #6422
    If you're talking to yourself you can. If you're talking to others it's considered good form to use the language properly.
  48. #6423
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If you're talking to yourself you can. If you're talking to others it's considered good form to use the language properly.
    Practise what you preach. Who's talking here? I'm writing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #6424
    *quickly googles "practise"

    phew, right one.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #6425
    I always have trouble with certain words. With "occasion" I never know if it's two c's or two s's, I just know it's one of one of the letters and two of the other. And they both look right when I type. same with 'necessary' and the c's and s's. it's a bitch.
  51. #6426
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Practise what you preach. Who's talking here? I'm writing.
    Word substitution is acceptable when it would be otherwise awkward to use the correct word.

    consider:

    "If you're writing for yourself you can."

    Sounds pretty clunky.
  52. #6427
    Sounds pretty clunky.
    *It sounds pretty clunky.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #6428
    would be otherwise
    *would otherwise be
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #6429
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It always trips me up that there are spelling differences between American and English.
    Like... practise isn't a word. Practice is. Colour isn't a word. Color is.

    I'm not really saying one is more right than the other... just that my brain triggers that "pause and investigate" response when I read across those words.
  55. #6430
    Both practise and practice are words, it's just the usual American bastardisation of our language...

    practise (verb) - perform a skill repeatedly to improve,
    practice (noun) - procedure, application.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #6431
    We and the Yanks use the 'practice' spelling for both of those meanings.
  57. #6432
    Bastards.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #6433
    If wonder if any French speaking nation decided to change the language a little bit, just to piss the French off? Like, changing "la" to "le" for a few words, prounouncing the x in words like faux, refusing to put a hat on the a in pate, or a squiggly thing over the e...

    I do hope so.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #6434
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If wonder if any French speaking nation decided to change the language a little bit, just to piss the French off
    In 7th grade French class I learned that 'oui' means 'yes', and that it's pronounced "wee"

    However every Canadian-American I've ever heard speak the language pronounces it like "why"
  60. #6435
    The proper French definitely pronounce it "wee". They often say it twice, "oui oui".

    Incidentally, wee wee is child's piss.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  61. #6436
  62. #6437
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If wonder if any French speaking nation decided to change the language a little bit, just to piss the French off? Like, changing "la" to "le" for a few words, prounouncing the x in words like faux, refusing to put a hat on the a in pate, or a squiggly thing over the e...

    I do hope so.

    The le/la thing is a masculine/feminine property of all Romance languages, so if they changed that they would look like retards to pretty much everyone in that language family afaik.

    We were taught to say 'wee' for 'oui', but I'm sure we were taught some bastardizations of the language as well. I remember a person from France telling me they would never use the word 'formidable' (pronounced 'for-me-DAAAB') to say something is great, but it's common in Quebecois French.

    No word on whether they do it just to piss of the real Frenchies though.
  63. #6438
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,201
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    By condescending pointless drivel? Yeah I've noticed.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  64. #6439
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,660
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Why did they drop the MOAB on Afghanistan?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  65. #6440
    To scare North Korea into bottling it and pretending their launch failed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #6441
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,462
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Why did they drop the MOAB on Afghanistan?
    Now that Trump has removed some of the previous administration's shackles/red tape on the military, I think you're going to find much less transparency on these types of operations. Not saying it's good or bad, but the Obama administration liked to take more time to deliberate and discuss (much to the criticism of the military and its advocates) which resulted in more transparency as a by product.
    LOL OPERATIONS
  67. #6442
    Quote Originally Posted by bigred View Post
    Now that Trump has removed some of the previous administration's shackles/red tape on the military, I think you're going to find much less transparency on these types of operations. Not saying it's good or bad, but the Obama administration liked to take more time to deliberate and discuss (much to the criticism of the military and its advocates) which resulted in more transparency as a by product.
    What exactly is all of this based on? What "shackles/red tape" are you referring to specifically? Have you kept data on how long it takes Trump to deliberate a military action vs how long it took Obama? You stood behind each of them with a stopwatch?

    Honestly, this whole paragraph looks like something left in a truck-stop toilet.

    I'm not munitions expert, but from what I've read and heard from certain top outlets for news, analysis, & commentary, this MOAB is not a 'typical' bomb in that it has specific and unique applications beyond just blowing stuff up.

    While most bombs are designed to destroy a target, this one is designed to deny the enemy use of an area. It's mean to decimate terrain and render entire geographic areas, and it's resources, useless to the enemy. It's for causing mass disruption in areas with lots of natural cover (mountains, canyons, mesas, etc.).

    The bomb was dropped, and the concussive blast spread over an area 2 miles across. The intent was to disrupt the network of caves being used for covert transport, storage, and shelter for some 3000 terrorist fighters.

    Why does that need explaining?

    Frankly, I doubt very much we'd even be talking about this bomb if it was dropped six months ago. I also think we'd be talking alot less about it if it wasn't in such close proximity to the Syria stuff, and the looming N. Korea situation. I think all the talk about 'sending messages' and 'muscle flexing' is really just pundits inventing a context for their own job.

    The bomb was designed to fuck up caves. We found bad guys in caves. Do the math.
  68. #6443
    UK General Election in June.
  69. #6444
    Fucking great, just what I wanted. More fucking divisive politics, and two months of reading Labour's policy to see if I can actually vote for the cunt.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #6445
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fucking great, just what I wanted. More fucking divisive politics, and two months of reading Labour's policy to see if I can actually vote for the cunt.
    I've also got Great Manchester mayor to vote for. Read about the candidates today and how much I like them ranges from I don't want any of those policies to I don't want any of those policies and some of them make me sick.
  71. #6446
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    UK General Election in June.
    Explain this to me. Sounds like they want there to be a better "mandate". What was the first election for then?

    You elected a government to rule. Then when a really big issue came up, they all looked at each other and said "hmmm, maybe we're not the right people for this".

    What the fuck is that??!! How do you have any faith in your government if the people you elected just throw their hands up and punt whenever things get dicey
  72. #6447
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Explain this to me. Sounds like they want there to be a better "mandate". What was the first election for then?

    You elected a government to rule. Then when a really big issue came up, they all looked at each other and said "hmmm, maybe we're not the right people for this".

    What the fuck is that??!! How do you have any faith in your government if the people you elected just throw their hands up and punt whenever things get dicey
    The people deciding to have the election don't want to lose it, you realise this right?

    People have this idea that they vote for a PM when they don't they vote for a political party. As a result when the PM changes people want a general election as that person is "unelected". This is wrong but has some merit because people clearly don't understand what's going on in the first place.

    In this specific example the above applies somewhat but the important thing is they are going through Brexit negotiations and the party in charge are heavy favourites to win again. This essentially gives them license to do what they want because they won an election rather than have to deal with criticism validly they just say "we won the election". I'm also pretty sure (could be wrong on this) that it knocks the election further back so if shit goes badly they'll get voted out in 2020 whereas if they win now they'd be fine for longer and more likely to have settled down from any turmoil of leaving.
    Last edited by Savy; 04-18-2017 at 01:06 PM.
  73. #6448
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    People have this idea that they vote for a PM when they don't they vote for a political party. As a result when the PM changes people want a general election as that person is "unelected". This is wrong but has some merit because people clearly don't understand what's going on in the first place.
    I'm not sure I understand that. I haven't brushed up on my british civics though. Honestly, if you can't handle calling soccer and football by teh correct names, it's amazing you get anything done over there.

    This essentially gives them license to do what they want because they won an election rather than have to deal with criticism validly they just say "we won the election"
    OMFG, is there some kind of information embargo in Britain? Has news from the outside world not been allowed to travel across the English Channel? The "we won the election" argument doesn't hold water. The other side can just say "the Russians rigged the election".

    I'm also pretty sure (could be wrong on this) that it knocks the election further back so if shit goes badly they'll get voted out in 2020 whereas if they win now they'd be fine for longer and more likely to have settled down from any turmoil of leaving.
    So the party that's in power is using its power to manipulate the rules in a way that extends and maximizes its power

    That doesn't sound fascist-y to you?
  74. #6449
    I think you're taking me telling you things as me saying I agree with them or like them. I'm just giving you some information that you asked for.

    What's weird about this situation is lots of people wanted an election for two reasons; brexit & new pm, they kept saying no we're not doing one, not happening and now they are. Maybe it's just so the opposition can't prepare well for it if they know it's coming, most people aren't that into politics to be aware that she's been saying we aren't having one for ages.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    OMFG, is there some kind of information embargo in Britain? Has news from the outside world not been allowed to travel across the English Channel? The "we won the election" argument doesn't hold water. The other side can just say "the Russians rigged the election".
    Situations give context and are important.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So the party that's in power is using its power to manipulate the rules in a way that extends and maximizes its power

    That doesn't sound fascist-y to you?
    It sounds just more like life to me. I don't really agree with the rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm not sure I understand that. I haven't brushed up on my british civics though. Honestly, if you can't handle calling soccer and football by teh correct names, it's amazing you get anything done over there.
    If you're actually asking.

    Where you have like a list of people who become president if the president were to die when our leaders step down (does this ever happen with the president?) it falls to the political party itself to elect a new leader. So although when Cameron stepped down we ended up with May there were about 4-5 other people who could have been elected. So it's not like we know who the next one is going to be.
  75. #6450
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Where you have like a list of people who become president if the president were to die when our leaders step down (does this ever happen with the president?) it falls to the political party itself to elect a new leader. So although when Cameron stepped down we ended up with May there were about 4-5 other people who could have been elected. So it's not like we know who the next one is going to be.
    You don't just have a vice-PM who takes over when the first guy quits? Isn't this system extremely exploitable?

    There's a reason our candidates name their VP during the campaign. People want to know who the backup is. They make the backups debate each other on national television. Then, when something bad happens to the Prez, there's no turmoil as power transitions to the next guy. The opposite of that is total bat-shit chaos where there's a power struggle every time something sticky happens to your PM.

    I'm trying to imagine what it would have been like if America did this. So Roosevelt croaks while contemplating an invasion of Japan. Truman takes over and then says "I know I'm the commander-in-chief, but I dont' like making big decisions, so we'll have a special election to see if I'm still president"

    No wonder you needed us to save your asses from the Germans.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •