**** Elections thread *****

[Jack Sawyer]

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

[Savy]

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.

[Jack Sawyer]

[Poopadoop]

Lol, 'we're gonna protect civilians by bombing the shit out of the country.'

Inb4 Trump's popularity goes up 20 points.

[Jack Sawyer]

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.

[OngBonga]

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.

[Jack Sawyer]

A treatise on Fake News

[OngBonga]

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?

[BananaStand]

when we were bombing Syria the other day,

Where are you getting this *we* shit, limey?

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.

[OngBonga]

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?

[BananaStand]

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.

[OngBonga]

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.

[Poopadoop]

I live on planet internet,

<3

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.

[OngBonga]

<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.

[BananaStand]

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

[CoccoBill]

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.

[OngBonga]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[BananaStand]

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

[OngBonga]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[OngBonga]

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.

[OngBonga]

Better than being cynical, broke, and unemployed

I disagree, but I'm glad you feel this way, because it means were both winning.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[OngBonga]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[OngBonga]

I can make words up if they are easy to understand. Engrish is a flexible language.

[Poopadoop]

If you're talking to yourself you can. If you're talking to others it's considered good form to use the language properly.

[OngBonga]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[OngBonga]

*quickly googles "practise"

phew, right one.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[OngBonga]

Sounds pretty clunky.

*It sounds pretty clunky.

[OngBonga]

would be otherwise

*would otherwise be

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

[OngBonga]

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.

[Poopadoop]

We and the Yanks use the 'practice' spelling for both of those meanings.

[OngBonga]

Bastards.

[OngBonga]

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.

[BananaStand]

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"

[Poopadoop]

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.

[OngBonga]

The proper French definitely pronounce it "wee". They often say it twice, "oui oui".

Incidentally, wee wee is child's piss.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...ll-listen.html

How to explain Trump to liberals

[CoccoBill]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...ll-listen.html

How to explain Trump to liberals

By condescending pointless drivel? Yeah I've noticed.

[Jack Sawyer]

Why did they drop the MOAB on Afghanistan?

[bigred]

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.

[BananaStand]

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.

[OngBonga]

To scare North Korea into bottling it and pretending their launch failed.

[Savy]

UK General Election in June.

[BananaStand]

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

[Savy]

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.

[BananaStand]

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?

[Savy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[OngBonga]

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.

[Savy]

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.

[OngBonga]

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.

Oh hey, savy meet politics, politics this is savy.

[OngBonga]

Haha an American mocking our democratic system.

Explain to me how your nation is democratic again, banana. What's the Electoral College?

[BananaStand]

Haha an American mocking our democratic system.

HA! If your system was so great, then maybe America wouldn't have fought a whole war with you just to get away from it. I have no idea how you take comfort in the fact that your royal overlords are a frail old woman and a tiny baby.

Explain to me how your nation is democratic again, banana.

How is it not? Why is your definition of democracy confined to simple-majority rule?

What's the Electoral College?

It's the benevolent magical force that prevented President Gore.

[Savy]

You keep trying to have digs at me as if I'm taking the position that I think how the UK is ran is a good thing.

Oh hey, savy meet politics, politics this is savy.

I don't think you're taking what I said literally enough.

[OngBonga]

I have no idea how you take comfort in the fact that your royal overlords are a frail old woman and a tiny baby.

Of German descent, no less. Check out how they changed their name to Windsor from Saxe-Coburg during WWI.

I take no comfort from that, although I will say that their influence is minimal when it comes to politics, at least, it's minimal from the point of view of the electorate. Most morons here think the Royal Family is worth having for the tourism, but I don't think one can put a price on true democracy.

How is it not? Why is your definition of democracy confined to simple-majority rule?

It's not a simple "majority rule", not unless it's a two-party system. The Tories have power here with a house majority, but not a majority of votes.

Our system is indeed fucked up, but it seems slightly more democratic than America's. You guys really need to get rid of the EC. And if you think that's what stopped Gore, you have a bad memory. Either that or it's fingers in ears refusing to accept that Bush cheated.

[BananaStand]

It's not a simple "majority rule", not unless it's a two-party system. The Tories have power here with a house majority, but not a majority of votes.

Jesus man. This would be hilarious if it wasn't kinda sad. You're splitting hairs over the word 'majority', yet then follow it up by saying the Tories have a majority...it's just a different kind of majority.

BUY A FUCKING DICTIONARY!!

The word you're looking for is 'plurality'. But you're de-railing now anyway. The point is democracy doesn't necessarily mean 'most votes wins'.

Our system is indeed fucked up, but it seems slightly more democratic than America's. You guys really need to get rid of the EC

.
Why? So liberal politicians can win elections on platforms of urban aid that only benefit New York, LA, Boston, Chicago, San Fran, Houston, Atlanta, Denver, St Louis, and Philadelphia? What about the rest of Amerca? How would you ensure that rural concerns are represented in all levels of government?

And if you think that's what stopped Gore, you have a bad memory. Either that or it's fingers in ears refusing to accept that Bush cheated.

I recommend you wear less tinfoil.

[Poopadoop]

They called an election now because they thought they'd have a better chance of winning an immediate election than if they waited another two years or whatever time they have remaining. It's as simple as that. All this talk about wanting a mandate is them blowing smoke up our asses.

[Savy]

They called an election now because they thought they'd have a better chance of winning an immediate election than if they waited another two years or whatever time they have remaining. It's as simple as that. All this talk about wanting a mandate is them blowing smoke up our asses.

The stuff about a mandate isn't blowing smoke up asses it's setting the frame that they want. It's very important.

Obviously it's bullshit in terms of why they did it but it's certainly not in terms of attempting to optimise their result of doing it.

[Poopadoop]

The stuff about a mandate isn't blowing smoke up asses it's setting the frame that they want.

it's setting the frame that they want.

In other words, blowing smoke up our asses to set the frame that they want.

[Keith]

The stuff about a mandate isn't blowing smoke up asses it's setting the frame that they want. It's very important.

Obviously it's bullshit in terms of why they did it but it's certainly not in terms of attempting to optimise their result of doing it.

I think that Corbyn agreeing to the election shows that he is strategically ignorant and shouldn't be the Prime Minister of the country entering into a negotiation with the EU over Brexit. That negotiation is likely to be the most important thing that happens over the next couple of years and will affect the country's prosperity for the next 10-20 years at least.

Why should he have voted against the election ? At the moment shit is all lined up against him , half his MPs don't want him as leader of their party let alone as PM. He is massively behind May in opinion polls for who the best PM is , and his party is seen as divided because so many of his MPs don't support him resulting in a big lead for the tories in the polls.

Up to 30 Tories are supposedly under investigation by the cps for election expense fraud at the last election , assuming that 1/3 of those would be sitting MPs , some failed candidates and some party officials making up the majority, by blocking the election now , charges could then have been levied agaiinst those individuals over the summer. This would likely have resulted in suspension/resignation of the sitting MPs who get charged and bielections over the summer . The loss of 10-15 tories takes the tories Commons majority down from 22 to 7-12 and makes chances of actually blocking tory legislation possible with a wafer thin tory majority. Should bielections then result from those constituencies it could have resulted in the majority being wiped out and put Corbyn in a much stronger position being able to defeat tory legislation.

Lib Dems would no longer be able to form a coalition to prop up the tory government because of their much reduced number of MPs and them being on the remain side of brexit with the tories committed to brexit.Corbyn actually defeating government policy regularly would then strengthen his position in his party MPs eyes and also in the public's eyes.Polls would likely move in his favour and he'd be able potentially bring government down with votes of no confidence.Then he'd also have tory sleaze to campaign on in any ensuing election.

By agreeing to the elction he has allowed Theresa May to sidestep any problems resulting from election expense fraud as those MP's potentially affected may be persauded that they should not stand in this election. Sleaze accusations can be easily deflected now as there is no proof that anything wrong occured at this time and allowed May to exploit her personal /party lead over Corbyn/labour. By adopting the Brexit agenda , UKIP has now been neutralised especialy with wilingness to go the hard line on brexit if necessary to get the immigration measures they are playing to a lot of the voters who voted for brexit so a lot of UKIP votes from the last election may now move back to the tories to get that brexit legislation/negotiation pushed through. A lot of those UKIP votes switching to the tories could well end up with a much bigger majority for the Tories .By contrast some of the remain voters could well end up switching away from labour to the lib dems giving them more seats at labours expense.

The same thing could be said about Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the SNP. By agreeing to the election she has allowed the Tories to wrap themselves in the unionist flag and put a clause in their manifesto saying that they will block any Scottish independence calls for the life of the next parliament. That then gives Scottish voters not wanting independence an outlet as a protest vote and could result in a reduced SNP number of seats. Crucially though, if the Tories do establish an increased majority due to Labours likely poor performance and insert the unionist clause in the manifesto their hopes of an Independence referendum are off the table for at least 5 years.
By waiting , and the tory prosecutions come about this summer , Tory majority disappears and tory sleaze then becomes a campaigning issue, likelyhood then is that SNP could then be necessary to labour to form a coalition government. Their price for agreeing to be coalition partners could then be getting the second independence referendum that they want.

[Savy]

The same thing could be said about Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the SNP. By agreeing to the election she has allowed the Tories to wrap themselves in the unionist flag and put a clause in their manifesto saying that they will block any Scottish independence calls for the life of the next parliament. That then gives Scottish voters not wanting independence an outlet as a protest vote and could result in a reduced SNP number of seats. Crucially though, if the Tories do establish an increased majority due to Labours likely poor performance and insert the unionist clause in the manifesto their hopes of an Independence referendum are off the table for at least 5 years.
By waiting , and the tory prosecutions come about this summer , Tory majority disappears and tory sleaze then becomes a campaigning issue, likelyhood then is that SNP could then be necessary to labour to form a coalition government. Their price for agreeing to be coalition partners could then be getting the second independence referendum that they want.

The bit I've deleted I don't really disagree with in general, some of the conclusions maybe a bit. The point about lib dems gaining labour seats i find a bit hard to swallow just because of the numbers in most places and the realisation from those labour voters that by voting lib dem in libdem/labour seats they aren't really helping the "cause".

SNP want out of the UK that is their main goal. SNP didn't reject the notion they didn't vote on it, this is different because one is them voting and losing (which they would have done anyway because Corbyn wants out and labour think being "remainy" ruins their chances, pandering bullshit as usual so they aren't stopping it as it looks week, although 3 years down the line who cares I agree) gives the frame that they can't really make a difference in UK politics. The other is them saying we abstain from this bullshit, if only we weren't governed by them we could ignore all this bullshit. They also benefit from teh fact there hasn't really been enough time for them to fuck anything up, they are basically in the same position but with a remain scotland that at the same time taking the most pro-remain stance.

To the SNP labour losing seats and them staying strong isn't a bad thing because a labour uk is good with Scotland really.

[OngBonga]

The word you're looking for is 'plurality'. But you're de-railing now anyway. The point is democracy doesn't necessarily mean 'most votes wins'.

lol who's talking out of ass?

The Tories have a majority in Parliament because they control more than half of the seats.

They don't have a mjaority when it comes to votes because they got something like 35% or some shit.

One is a majority, the other is a plurality.

The point is democracy doesn't necessarily mean 'most votes wins'.

Not necessarily, but surely if we're striving for the perfect democracy, then votes should have equal power, right? My vote should be exactly as powerful as anyone else's. But it's not. That divide is greater in USA than it is UK, that's my measure of how effective our "democracy" is.

[BananaStand]

Not necessarily, but surely if we're striving for the perfect democracy, then votes should have equal power, right?

Ok...so answer my question.

How do you ensure that rural votes have equal power if you eliminate the electoral college? How do you prevent the urban class from overwhelming an election?

[Savy]

Ok...so answer my question.

How do you ensure that rural votes have equal power if you eliminate the electoral college? How do you prevent the urban class from overwhelming an election?

The whole point is individuals get a vote. What you're talking about is retarded.

[Jack Sawyer]

The whole point is individuals get a vote. What you're talking about is retarded.

No no no no no savy you don't get it: rural votes need to count MORE because not every vote should be the same. That way you can ensure that the rural folks get MORE OF A SAY on a per-vote basis in your elections.

It just makes all the sense in the world, I can't see how you don't see it

[OngBonga]

Ok...so answer my question.

How do you ensure that rural votes have equal power if you eliminate the electoral college? How do you prevent the urban class from overwhelming an election?

I've no idea, I'm not paid to come up with these solutions. Does the EC balance out urban and rural votes?

The solution I'd be looking into is making sure that each voting area, which represents one seat, is as close to equal in population as is practical. How practical that is would be a challenge for other people. I can't be fucked to get the map out.

[Poopadoop]

Lol at the electoral college being a good system.

Let's give the rural Wyoming voter more say in government than the resident of NYC. Ya, that's perfectly fair.

[BananaStand]

The whole point is individuals get a vote. What you're talking about is retarded.

Individuals do get a vote. And every vote counts. You're retarded if you think otherwise.

No no no no no savy you don't get it: rural votes need to count MORE because not every vote should be the same. That way you can ensure that the rural folks get MORE OF A SAY on a per-vote basis in your elections.

It just makes all the sense in the world, I can't see how you don't see it

It's pretty transparent when characterize it like that, in order to make it sound ridiculous, and then make yourself seem smart by mocking something ridiculous. Phony.

This whole idea that certain votes count "more" or "less" than others is preposterous.

I've no idea, I'm not paid to come up with these solutions. Does the EC balance out urban and rural votes?

How can you criticize something that solves a problem you have no idea how to solve otherwise? Yes, it does "balance" urban and rural votes, though I hate characterizing it like that. It just opens it up to phony criticism by people who are butt-hurt by the fact that the discrepancy between popular vote and EC vote went against them both times.

The solution I'd be looking into is making sure that each voting area, which represents one seat, is as close to equal in population as is practical.

That's exactly how it works for 80% of the electoral votes. The rest are divided equally at a rate of 2 per state.

So what's your beef?

Lol at the electoral college being a good system.

LOL at a canuck thinking he knows better than America about anything. If you had a clue, at all, you'd move south.

Let's give the rural Wyoming voter more say in government than the resident of NYC. Ya, that's perfectly fair.

The "more of a vote" argument is a fallacy espoused by lazy-minded people who can't wrap their brain around the possibility of an election result inconsistent with popular vote results.

It has nothing to do with 'more of a vote' or 'less of a vote'.

Jesus guys, the name of the country is the UNITED STATES. Not "PLACE RUN JUST BY STATES WITH BIG CITIES"

[Jack Sawyer]

Ok,

So why is the US now bombing Somalia?