goDel

dude, low iq =/= above average =/= high iq

Slightly off-tangent: Would love to see Adam Curtis doing a docu on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Replacement

That piece of text bitchroast posted was 'clearly' written by someone with an above average IQ. Not sure what you mean with low IQ. Lower than genius level? I mean, one of the concerning things is that there's a significant amount of people (white guys) with good education and all who believe this shit. You can't just write this off as low IQ because the ideas are shitty. Sure, he's probably not in the top of his class. But he won't be on the bottom either. edit: he mentions "The Great Replacement" anyone ideas what that is. the christchurch shooters manifesto or something? (will google)

texas governor appears to call it a hate crime. to me the thing about terrorism is there's some kind of organisation behind it with a specific goal. and in this aspect there is some difference. whether or not these massacres should be called an act of terrorism, i'm really not sure. to me it would be an obvious yes if there was some kind of organisation behind it. it doesn't look like there is. is it right to call this a hate crime instead? well, to me this is largely an academic discussion and i don't have any stake in it. if you've got good reasons to call this a terrorist attack, you have my blessings.

I believe there could be a surge. But the interesting thing is that from the outside, following the reporting I don't get an impression there is one. There's a growing threat coming from rightwing terrorism and lone wolfs and all that. But a surge in mass shootings is not being widely reported here. Not arguing that it isn't the case or anything. Just that I would have expected there would be more of an outcry if that was the case. If there is, I'm getting numb.. ?

He used an AK-47 or something like it. Not your usual US rifle, isn't it? Damned ruskies. Not sure if blaming Trump will help. It's been like this for years. Decades. Complicit, perhaps. But the same holds for any 2nd amendment fruitcake. Can't blame Trump for all those fruitcakes. Or the 2nd amendment even. This goes beyond Trump. But yes, he's complicit because a large part of his base overlaps with those fruitcakes. He's not going to introduce laws or policies which will put him at odds with his base. Although, I wouldn't rule it out either. It's Trump. You never know.

Thx! Looks interesting:

Too soon

that imprint track is on a whole other level. godly.

For selfish archiving purposes, this bill was about

I think you both make a good point. Getting people involved and voting was key. But also the sensitivity of the different candidates towards their local electorate. Where they were on the political spectrum. Or rather, where they were on local issues. In the run-up to the midterms I remember dems having discussions about their strategy in terms of "should we broaden the tent and allow for more conservative voices ( eg in the context of social issues), or should we stick to our principles and keep certain ideas out of our party?". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember they choose to broaden the "democratic tent" to also allow candidates with less common (conservative) ideas if it would help getting more democratic seats. And the focus was put on local issues instead on the larger national themes. With healthcare being an important exception, btw. That's basically the one issue which plays out similarly in a local and a national setting. But that local focus was important to get people to vote back then. If I remember correctly. So my guess is, they both went hand in hand. And the strategy which should work on a national stage is a difficult one. As the part of the electorate which could be considered more on the extremes of the political spectrum tends to be more actively involved, I believe. But the difference will be made in getting the center to be involved as well. That's where the swing voters are. But if you go for the middle, you will lose the extremes. This might be mitigated by candidates pairing up during the general election however. Like a Biden/Warren ticket. Or a Harris/ Sanders ticket.

If anyone got an idea what this bill was about, I'm all ears. Awkward for Graham to push this through the way he did

Yeah. If Biden keeps his head cool while other candidates keep on attacking him, I'll give him the best chance of winning the primaries and the election. I'm assuming a large part of the electorate just want the hysteric nonsense to stop. Whether it's Trump creating chaos, or a bunch of progressives calling for the proverbial revolution. Even if bigger and bigger crowds are drawn towards the extremes nowadays. I still believe in a silent majority with a more moderate outlook on life. Haven't seen last nights debate, but the first headlines I've seen seem to give Biden positive marks when it comes to dealing with all the attacks. To me, that will be the key to victory.

afterburner: but i do agree with you if you really meant to say that nobody could change your opinions on these issues. yeah, that's true i guess. ?

do you have polling data and all the issues you named? preferably on state level, as opposed to national level. without knowing the data, i can be fairly sure there's a lot of variation. implying there's plenty people arguing against. you might disagree with their reasoning. but that doesn't really matter here, does it?

Of course you can, silly. Also, I hope you realize that if Bernie will be the next president, he won't be able to do all (or even any) of the stuff he says he likes to do. This is not a democratic process to elect a new dictator. You get that, right? Btw, I trust on the primaries producing the best candidate to run against Trump. Simply because it's a numbers game. The one who convinced the most people to support him/her, is the best. Biggest support in the primaries will likely lead to the biggest support in the general. Sure, there are always black swan scenarios. But I'm really not interested in getting my head around all possible and unlikely scenarios. And when it comes to policies... no need to explain the current state of Washington. The less you expect, the better your prediction of the outcome. Who or what will break the Washington deadlock... beats me. I don't expect a change in 2020, tbh.

we're speaking different languages. i don't think you've got any idea whatsoever what i'm talking about. it's ok.

Wouldn't wait with this too long. The pound is already moving downwards... if you're gonna short, do it quick!

Case in point 2: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/30/boris-johnson-no-deal-preparation-leaflets-advice-brexit

Case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/30/stop-playing-russian-roulette-sheep-industry-johnson-told

All trade agreements with the EU involved end immediately (food, medicine, etc). So everything will grind to an immediate halt. Short term agreements have to be made. Imports (and export) require more red tape. And thus, take more time. Structural trade agreements will take years. Until then lots can go wrong. And because this is bigger than just finished products, all industries in UK requiring imports to make products will grind to a halt as well. So there's a def chain reaction in the broader economy. In a way it's similar to the financial crash of 2008 where the entire financial market came to a stand-still and banks fell left and right. This time, it's not the banks you should worry about, but all companies/businesses dealing in some way with the EU.

That's the thing right? This is exactly why the 'reasonable' people didn't take the brexiteers seriously. Even if the 'reasonable' remainers et al. did take the no deal scenario seriously, they didn't take the people (brexiteers) seriously, if that makes sense. There's a difference there. Even if I can agree with the 'logic', the political outcome of treating their position as "utter fantasy" was that there couldnt/can't be a political platform from which you build towards some kind of agreement. It's just not possible. That's the political reality I'm referring to. Which is ironically similar to what you see in the US, btw. Both sides of the discussion treat the other as living in "utter fantasy". Yes. And my argument is that the current process might be the only road to 'salvation'. Not another referendum. Or any other scenario. No, let them work out their precious no deal exit strategy. They have 3 months to be brilliant and save the UK. You and I have roughly similar ideas on the possibilities of that exercise. I can only repeat this is a necessary step in the process which hasn't been taken before. Simply because the "reasonable" people considered this a non-starter and "utter fantasy".

I really don't think it's useful to lump Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway and Inland Empire together. Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway essentially have a fairly classic story underneath them. Once you understand the underlying structure they're fairly straightforward even. Inland Empire however is a different beast. Even from the perspective of how it was produced. If I recall correctly, lots of it was made on set without a clear written story. As opposed to the previous two. MD and LH had an actual story. Yeah, they're made by Lynch. And some of it took place in LA. MD explicitly so. Hollywood was an integral part of the story. LH used Hollywood mostly as a decor, but the story could have taken place anywhere, imo. IE....well, you tell me. Even after reading the explanation MadameChaos posted, I didn't get any wiser, tbh. @Squee: LH was co-written by someone with a fairly straightforward story in mind. Whether or not that's Freudian is another thing. Point is, the confusion inherent to LH is not one similar from ordinary life, but due to the mental disorder of the storyteller. As a normal viewer, you ought to be confused I guess. But that's as far as normal as it gets. The meaning comes from understanding the mental disorder of the storyteller. You can put this aside as a sort of personal preference to appreciate the movie, but the writer actually attempted to tell the story from the perspective of a deranged person. It's your choice to discard that.

I get the impression we speak vastly different languages here. I already assumed you were poking holes in the referendum from a, as far as I'm concerned, more technical point of view. And this is where I already agreed with you. Even if you are more nuanced and precise in your criticisms, the notion the referendum was problematic in and of itself is not new or controversial. The point I was trying to make was that I get the impression you downplay the political reality that, despite of all these technical imperfections, the political reality is still real and with potentially huge consequences (hard brexit). So even if everything you say is largely true and correct - which i do believe btw - , that still doesn't mean the current situation is like a bad dream. This remembers me of some experiences I had with "Remain"-fanatics who in a way seem to be in a state of denial. As if a hard Brexit is some cynical joke by a couple of trolls in government which will never happen. Even though I can sympathise with their position and technically agree. As Farage really does make a convincing troll. And Boris Johnson similarly. The Remain-fanatics think they have a clear idea about what is reasonable. But the thing is, their logic is a faulty one. Even if I technically agree with their position. Simply because I don't think it's a cynical joke of some trolls to do a Brexit. And this is where the political reality comes into play. A significant part of the population voted for exit. And we can have endless debates about the technicalities of this vote. But that doesn't change the fact that many people - although perhaps not a majority - do still think the UK is better off outside the EU. It's certainly not the case that a large majority are fanatical remainers. Pro-EU is still something dirty in the UK. And this is the point where I'm hopeful, btw. With Boris Johnson as PM, a No-Deal Brexit finally becomes a potential reality instead of a cynical joke. Which is, imo, a necessary step in the process to a healthy post-October UK. It's time for the Hard-Brexiteers to do their business: prepare the country for a hard Brexit. This is where reason will prevail, I believe. One way or the other. First of, I don't believe in the "cynical joke" theory. Hard brexiteers are to be taken seriously. Which they haven't until now, imo. Second, if you accept their position wasn't a joke or some sort of cynical trolling, but a serious one, the *only* way to change their position is by taking the no-deal brexit seriously. Which - if the reporting is correct - is what currently is happening. So, as far as I'm concerned, all the 'reasonable' Remainers should shut up for a minute. Even though I generally agree with their position, their political gamesmanship has been awful and counter productive. Simply because from their point of view, a hard brexit was not and could not be taken seriously. (A fair generalisation, imo) They have to learn to accept that the hard brexiteers weren't joking or playing games (on some level - even though they really acted like a bunch of trolls), but seriously believe the UK can get away with a no deal exit. Only in thinking this through and trying to plan this transition out, they might change their position. Might. That won't be happening overnight. But three months of hard working and planning this no deal exit might just suffice. I really don't see another way. No new referendum or vote of confidence, or extension will change the current political landscape or will move things forward, imo. Preparing for a no deal exit will. Anyways, I'm repeating myself. I guess I'm not in a position to convince anyone around here. But that doesn't really matter anyways. I just hope Boris will properly execute his no deal exit plans. And in the process, maybe, the hard brexiteers come to the 'brilliant' idea that remaining might be the best option after all. Call it naive. And you're probably right.

New corn pone flicks