RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive30

Last year I posted an article about them creating the bullshit receptiveness scale
Then it was apolitical, they specifically generated statements that were designed to sound profound but were actually meaningless, and just saw how they linked up to linked up to how people felt about similar statements by actual bullshit artist deepak chopra, and a third control set that were common aphorisms that were deemed to be "not epistomologically suspect". They then found that while all people had a baseline level of profundity, there were strong trends in the generated bullshit and Chopra's bullshit.

I was amused by it, and posted an incorrect summary of the research because I had only read the abstract at the time. full paper of the original bullshit scale proposal. I'm just so delighted to see that bullshit vulnerability seems to correspond so well with my political views of who dumb people are. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Friend, everyone is interested in knowing "who [the] dumb people are," but not all care to read the study. Surely you could have revealed this important point? Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The study is pretty meaningless apart from pleasing certain people. About as stupid as these conservative/liberal IQ studies. All that was done here was asking a bunch of university students vague questions.
 * The whole thing looks poorly executed:
 * Small and biased sample size (mostly volunteering female university students), no meaningful controls (IQ, age, ethnicity, sex, education) that could reveal something.
 * We already knew that superstition and religious beliefs correlate.
 * And btw, there's very little about politics in that study. So nothing to gloat about. 193.62.251.21 (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The politics one is the one I posted to the actual WIGO, dummy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

US secession
Eh, groups advocating for their state to secede are as old as the US. From Aaron Burr to now someone somewhere thought they should secede and make their own country or state. Hell, there was a group of African Americans who wanted to secede and create the so this doesn't surprise me. I am more interested in the recent SCOTUS decisions that have effectively said that Puerto Rico's "commonwealth" status meant nothing and was a fancy word for colony; this should cause the UN to push for a referendum on the US's territories.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 05:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I wouldn't say state secession is a very new idea. Really I think the only state that could actually be successful alone is California, which would be bad news for liberals in the US. When it comes to Puerto Rico, it's complicated. This whole debt issue would only be exacerbated by independence, and its unclear what effect if any statehood might have. In the short term territory status might actually be the best thing for them, but I do think the US should decide what they're going to do with an island of over 3 million people. A referendum would also conceivably have three different options, become a state, stay a territory, or go independent, which might cause no majority on any of them. The other option would be two separate referendums. Hentropy (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well Puerto Rico is going through a brain drain and its agricultural sector wouldn't be able to sustain a populace if it were to secede today. If they did leave they could always choose to not pay their debtors but that would cause massive damage to foreign investor's trust. If they became a state they could declare bankruptcy, vote for a President, and elect two senators and several representatives. If they became a state they would be unlikely to pay such high rates to the merchant marines. Either option would allow them to control interests rates, taxes, and public spending. I am surprised no one has created an article on them since their historical situation has been egregious.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 17:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Eggresious": combination of egregious and regressive. But no, I think there should be a referendum with 2 options: statehood or independence. I'd prefer independence, but that's just me. With regards to self-sustaining, Puerto Rico would self-sustain if it were independent. This would be a country that still had a very close relationship with the US, unlike Cuba, which has managed to self-sustain basically off of fishing. It's about to get a whole lot better though. 22:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving off an option to keep things as they are is a rather undemocratic thing to do. The most recent referendum in 1998 showed that most people wanted to stay a territory, even back then, with independence only getting about 5% of the vote. Might be a bit different now but it turns out that, despite the history, much of the people there enjoy their in-between status. I'd probably say that a referendum would have more support for statehood since this debt fiasco, though. And I'm aware that 1997 was 18 years ago and avoiding that point because it makes me feel old. Hentropy (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently they did have one in 2012, which showed 60% support for statehood. Still not much support for independence, but I guess free association would be considered a kind of go-between. Hentropy (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * States are not allowed to secede from the US. We fought a war over this, sorry, but the Union won. CorruptUser (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The courts can rule that Puerto Rico isn't a state, so therefore it can become independent. 00:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But not Texas, which are always the assholes who bring this secession crap up. CorruptUser (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Texit is already on. The argument goes something like this: Texas is the only state that joined the Union by Treaty, and there's an option in the treaty to either secede, or breakup into 5 states (the Tyler-Texas treaty which Wikipedia has burried in its extensive Texas history articles). Now, when the idea of D.C. Statehood comes up, giving DC two Democratic Senators, some Texans argue for a compromise: allow DC statehood and Texas to break up into 5 states which would yield about 8 more GOP Senators. nobsBern baby bern 02:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Bullshit since Vermont, Utah, California, and Hawaii also joined by treaty. CorruptUser (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @CU Well nothing in the US constitution explicitly says that a state can't secede but scholars have always interpreted the 14th Amendment's statement that states can't violate anyone's rights within the Union as implicitly preventing secession.
 * @Rob I might be mistaken, but I thought the Union forced Texas to amend their constitution in order to prevent secession as a condition to rejoin the Union.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 05:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We'd just have to amend the Constitution. Frankly, as a bleeding-heart California liberal, I'm ready to let the South go as long as they promise no backsies. Oh and maybe free navigation of the Mississippi and other major rivers I guess. Then maybe we can let Canada in. They're so polite! --Ymir (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 54-40 or Fight! All we want is British Colombia. The rest of those pansy-asses you can keep. nobsBern baby bern 02:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The Obama administration has supported many similar laws and policies to the Duma (banning encryption, investigating those justifying terrorism, etc.)
But remember we can't criticize our dear leader Obama. Either that or maybe what the Duma is proposing is not that odious (if odious at all), considering their constitution. Objective (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We already restrict people traveling internationally without due process. It's called a No Fly List.   Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus wholeheartedly support this.  They will sit down on the floor and not move if you disagree. Objective (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want, we can talk about how bad Obama's been on an authoritarian level. I have plenty of disagreements with him on a variety of issues, ranging from Guantanamo to drone strikes, from foreign interventions in Libya and Syria to the signing of the PATRIOT Act and TPP. But these are all criticisms I have coming from a left-wing perspective rather than a right-wing perspective. They tend to be principled. Is your dislike of Obama from a right-wing perspective or a left-wing one? 15:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As my user page states, my perspective is neither left wing not right wing - not even libertarian vs. authoritarian. I believe only in a system with checks and balances is it okay to adjudicate rights away for public safety.  Obama tends to oppose due process, and this is the basis of my criticism.  I als agree with you on TPP, but again that is not from a left wing vs right wing perspective, or even a free trade vs protectionism perspective. Objective (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, a user made an essay about Obama. He was a socialist but I would say that there is plenty of criticisms there that aren't strictly a left-wing perspective especially the section on civil liberties.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 17:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If what you said is really the case, I agree with you completely, Objective. 01:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Obama is a failed President (:re Puerto Rico "bailout" article)
Obama lowered the minimum wage to $4.25 an hour for those under 25 in Puerto Rico? Obama isn't lying when he says he is a moderate Republican. There's another word that comes to mind in regards to this "bailout" - indentured servitude. Objective (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe make sure Republicans don't win every midterm election, and maybe we won't have to give away the farm to them in order to avoid total chaos. Hentropy (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no concession made here with Republicans; they may have added the worst parts to this bill but Obama didn't oppose it. Obama was always a fiscal conservative.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Obama will go down as the cheap labor President for his position on flooding the low wage labor market through supporting the Bush/Romney/Ryan open borders policy, through a healthcare policy that created an implicit 90% tax rate on the working class via Obamacare, and through never raising the minimum wage (except nominally and deceptively symbolically for federal workers). Objective (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Open borders" lol. Obama is the deporter in chief because he deported more immigrants than any other presidents, ramped up the militarization of our border, and created many immigration dentition centers.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC) 01:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

General philip breedlove
Theres a name that does not match his professionAMassiveGay (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's good, but nothing can beat the original: General H.U.G. 107.77.76.91 (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over archiving
just stop it already! Please! another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email.
For personal amusement (and for the fun commentary of others), I'll post the best I find on Free Republic. They're truly going batshit over there. It's impressive! --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll make some popcorn. 107.77.76.91 (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah conservative media will predictably go nuts. All while casually pretending Rice and Powell didn't do the exact same thing and Bush/Reagan weren't guilty of much more egregious crimes. Hentropy (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, totes. It'll be a wonderful exercise in deliberate ignoring and twisting of narrative.
 * I was also curious as to whether Mona would have a conniption, as I consider her to be the prototypical Sandalo, so I took a gander at her Twitter. Yup, she's not happy with it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How many minutes till the disgusting Tweet from Trump with something anti-Semitic again? -MasterofLogic (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's probably going to be a bit later. There are a lot of nice threads to pull through. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh these are already gold. I love the Usurpation Day one...  -MasterofLogic (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I dont really understand what all this email business is about. Government ministers are always losing laptops full of sensitive information on the train in uk. Everyone laughs, the minister says 'oops' the police arent called and after a few days xfactor is in the headlines again. Literally everything is treason in the states. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much the same here, unless you're a civilian contractor. The email issue never really was one, but due diligence was required and all that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

First round! Source is here.--Castaigne2 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Second round! Source. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Hillary committed a criminal offense in the handling of her private email. She had a server specially built at her house! Who does that?? 17:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Colin Powell, her predecessor in SOS, and Jeb Bush.
 * It's actually more common than you think, if you ever do business with federal or state government. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Condoleeza Rice. I forgot about her.
 * If it helps, this is what a buddy of mine had to say. "as a former IT pro myself, I can make a strong case that Hillary's private server was an excellent choice to make based on what the IG's report said about the IT culture at State." Truth be told, it was probably more secure than the DOS servers. (And pray you never work for government IT in the USA.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are still some Birthers around??--The Kigel (talk) (mail) 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A shit-ton of 'em. You just have to know where to look, much like Truthers. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are still some Birthers around??--The Kigel (talk) (mail) 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A shit-ton of 'em. You just have to know where to look, much like Truthers. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Third round! Source. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Fourth round! Source. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Fifth round! Source. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Last round! Source. That's a wrap! --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This whole thing was just so silly - anyone who actually had first hand experience dealing with classified information could see this outcome from the beginning. I'm Just a Guy on the Internet, so obviously take the following with a grain of salt:

I used to be in Military Intelligence, and served for a while as my Reserve unit's Security Manager. I was never directly involved in an investigation into the mis-handling of classified information, but I was on the periphery of several. None of them resulted in criminal prosecution. No one involved, AFAIK, ever seriously considered taking any of the cases to a court martial. A couple of cases involved career officers or senior NCOs, but most were junior enlisted personnel with no political connections whatsoever. The punishments ranged from re-training, to letters of reprimand (actually kind of a big deal for a career Soldier, but still a far cry from criminal charges), to stripping a clearance and mandatory re-classing to a different MOS. Unless something really bizarre had come to light (like evidence that she was deliberately leaking classified info to a journalist or something), there was just never any realistic possibility of anything other than, at the worst, a reprimand from a high-ranking official.67.209.17.212 (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * From the comments above that were posted in the reaction blogs it's pretty obvious this has little to do with reality. -MasterofLogic (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not everything is newsworthy
Owlman, is it really necessary to add 5 items to WIGO every day? The WIGO is getting filled up faster than normal... CorruptUser (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (shrug) I found that most of those stories seem to be relevant to the WIGO.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 06:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have too many entries than too few. But I'm just a BoN. 107.77.76.63 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And really, it's only too many when people start downvoting so many that it becomes a hassle to take them down. If owlman's large numbers of contributitions came as part of some tiresome PoV, I'd get sick of it pretty quick, but really, they're just articles of interest, and he's keeping the page alive more than anything.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On a general note if I ever misrepresent a story or begin to force my PoV on the WIGOs anyone should bring it up here or on my talk page.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 01:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * i generally just roll my eyes and downvote. Not your wigos specifically, but it does annoy when wigos more than just a brief summary or headline and turn into an editorial. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there are too many stories posted daily. 02:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * and while we griping, blog or even clog in the news bit. Internet killing religion latest example. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are too many items. The voting (generally) sorts the gold from the shit.  08:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I know I do that now and then. Honestly, I don't mind the volume, although I could do with a few more witty titles. :D ℕoir LeSable (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know a bad driver record is now cause for someone who has a legal concealed carry permit to now be executed
The more you know. Objective (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't take the article that way. For me, I took it as evidence that he was likely harassed by police because he was black and that this overcriminalization of minor crimes led to his death.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 22:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Saudi support for al-Qaeda hjiackers
Firstly, I would encourage everyone reading this, if you have not already done so, to read the entire 28 pages. I've read them, and I think it should be clear to most people reading it that the Saudi government didn't do enough to stop the attacks, that some people in the Saudi government financed the hijackers, and the Saudi government itself may have intentionally and knowingly bankrolled the entire thing. This won't be covered by the news because the US government decided to release this right after a major news story (mass killing) in France, I believe because the US government doesn't want the media to cover it. But this should be a major wake-up call for all rational people, particularly Americans such as myself. The Saudis were the primary governmental entity involved with this. I also think the US delayed the release of these documents for over 10 years because they didn't want to have the people chanting for war against Saudi Arabia, instead wanting them to back the Iraq War. That's a travesty. If my government were serious about fighting terrorism, the first thing it would've done post-9/11 would be to have ordered its troops stationed in the KSA to march on Riyadh and depose the House of Saud. But the US government didn't want that because oil. 19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In before Arisboch (Kugelschreiber) or someone else says "but Iran is worse! becausetheyhateIsrael" أمير المعكرونة (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Saudi Arabia (or at the very least its government) also hates Israel. Granted they are more likely to make common cause (grudgingly) than the "kill the Juice" government of Iran, but they still have a "you die second" approach to Israel. At best. 149.210.131.21 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If we turn on the Saudis, the terrorists win!
 * No seriously, they win. Al Qaeda's number one goal is to get the US to turn on the Saudis. CorruptUser (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should the US not turn on the Saud dynasty? 149.210.131.21 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the people who replace it will probably be worse? We are talking about a country that threw a hissy fit when we convinced the leadership to ban slavery in 1962, and murdered a king because he allowed televisions. CorruptUser (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If the Us overthrew Saudis and put the Hashemite dynasty into power (complete with Jordanian military control), that would likely prevent a takeover of "worse" people, whilst ensuring US control over oilfields. The reason the US doesn't do this has to do with Saudi monetary support for the US. 02:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed. The Hashemites don't want it. They're perfectly happy to let Saudi Arabia have the Hejaz; they want Iraq and Syria instead. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be the last thing the US would want to do, overthrow the Custodians of the Holy Places and be accused by the Islamic world as interfering or dictating who oversees the pilgrimage. Of all bad choices - Salafists or Iranians - to take over, the Saudis are probably least objectionable. If a collapse is meant to be, it'll happen of its own weight, and then of various successors, we'd have to look at who's least objectionable or rational enough in the long run to not have that big of a disruption to the global economy. nobsBern baby bern 04:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Having posted this and actually read the report, there is a whole fuckton of "maybe", "might have", and "unconfirmed" in there, far too much for me to advise taking action on.
 * Also, OK, we depose the House of Saud, which causes immense tribalization of the whole country as they're the only thing holding it together. Which of the approximately 35 tribal should we support as the new rulers? --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If I were president we'd be moving towards green energy, so oil wouldn't be a factor for me. I'd invade, kill all of the Saudi male royal family members, imprison everyone involved with al-Qaeda, then leave. Let the country fight a bloody civil war that kills hundreds of thousands. If you are scared of that, you could artificially partition the country by giving Jordan, Yemen, and UAE their own slice along their border, whilst spinning off the Shia region in the Northeast into a separate state. Another alternative would be to occupy the country for 30 years like with Korea and Germany, but the US public might not have went for that. 03:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What an amazingly simple and obvious plan to fix the entire universe, PB. Such a shame reality disagrees. It should surprise me that you're advocating for stuff even the Nazis would find a lil' bit extreme, but after all you've admitted that you'd love sending Hillary to prison just because of your personal hatred towards her, so it doesn't. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The plan was purposefully obtuse to show the unlikeliness of it happening, dipshit. I can't fix the entire universe because I am just one person at a computer. Godwin's Law so you lose (nahh, I retract that). I would send Hillary to prison because she sent classified information over an unsecure private server 106 times over the course of 4 years, and deleted tens of thousands of "personal" e-mails, which is destruction of evidence in an active investigation. Try again. 19:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean the thing she was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing for? You think the justice system is just a tool to further your own agenda? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Every US president post-FDR could've been convicted of war crimes and imprisoned, but they weren't because they were the political establishment. Of course James Comey wouldn't want to recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton. He's a supporter of hers. The justice system was only ever a tool of the rich to keep people they didn't like out of their way. Hence why only one person was imprisoned after the financial crisis that Wall Street caused. You had hundreds of people participating in fraud, and they didn't get charged solely because they were well-connected. If I wanted to, I'd only prosecute people I disagreed with. That's how things work in America and most other countries. 03:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What if this is one of those matters that nothing but a river of blood can solve?

Coup in Turkey, good or bad?
First of all it is still very much fog of war and it seems unclear who will ultimately win the coup, but it may end much like previous military coups in Turkey with the military taking over for a bit and then giving power to a "civilian" government that has relatively free reign as long as it does not impose upon the military or becomes too religious. I think a military regime and an Islamist one are equally unpleasant and Erdoğan is/was no friend of a free press or all the other trappings that usually come with democracy, but I doubt the military will be. What do you say? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fucking bad. The attempted overthrow of a democratically elected leader, even if it is of a turd like Erdoan, is not good.--Mercian (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mixed. Erdogan has abused his powers for a while, but he's also democratically elected, so I'll wait and see. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you really call someone "democratically elected" if they have new elections if they lose once? Also obtaining a majority (or plurality) in a democratic or semi-democratic election does not make you a small d democrat. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fucking bad. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully and completely support the military coup against the fascists AKP and Erdogan. Turkey might have a real change to stop supporting the terrorists in Syria. Hopefully the crackdown on the PKK and Kurdish civilians in Kurdistan will stop too, but that's more of a dream than what's happening now. There are reports of a massive pro-Erdogan protest in Taksim square. Remember that Turkey has a history of military coups, with thousands killed and hundreds of thousands arrested. 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking high?
 * Look, I despise Erdogan, but he was properly elected in accordance with the law. A coup? Talk about destabilization. If the coup succeeds, we might as well give up on Turkey because it will be in a civil war for the next decade.
 * Also, I can't countenance abrogation of rule of law. At all. I denounce all coups, no matter where they take place. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not. He was not elected with full support. Some polling placed were rigged and pro-opposition TV channels and newspapers were shut down before the election. Classic steal. Anyways, it looks like the coup is starting to fail after Erdogan's CNN Turk live broadcast told his dogs to go and oppose the military. Even if the majority of people in Turkey support Erdogan, I don't care. Screw them. 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And you call yourself a progressive for Bernie?
 * I think the Trumpalo alt-right is more your style. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Or hang out at Free Republic. They have calls for military coups against Obama every other day, if you like them so much.
 * Or do you only apply your liking for coups to those you personally approve of? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The guy is a fucking fascist. Do you think I'm gonna criticize a coup attempt against Hitler because he was democratically elected? Godwin's Law doesn't apply in this situation, because it's a fascist leader. A bomb just went off in the Turkish Parliament. 23:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually, you should. Because if rule of law and democracy and all that jazz work even when you hate the guy in charge, that means you have a good country and a stable setup that provides peace and prosperity for the citizenry. If you're willing to dump constitutions - ours, theirs, anyone's - whenever you get a throw of the dice you don't like, you might as well just go with warlords and kings and absolute emperors. Because that's not rule of law, that's rule of men and pure whim.
 * Seeing you support this makes me wonder if, when you decide to have a coup, whether you'd blow my brains out yourself when I opposed the coup, or whether you'd delegate it so you don't get your hands dirty. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Aren't basically all governments in existence based on overthrowing previous governments? How do you determine legitimacy then? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several ways to define political legitimacy. The way that I adhere to is rational-legal legitimacy, which "derives from a system of institutional procedure, wherein government institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore, it is through public trust that the government will abide the law that confers rational-legal legitimacy."
 * A coup d'état, being the "illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus" does not conform to rational-legal legitimacy and so therefore is invalid (IMHO). If you follow a different path of legitimacy, you'll get different answers to that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is hard to say for sure what is going on right now. Some are saying the coup has already failed, in which case it was probably not a "real" military coup, but rather the actions of a smaller group that looked up to Sisi with inspiration. Or that may be government propaganda and they really have lost control. Unlike in Syria, the Turkish military is representative because it is compulsory for young men, and it is generally popular, but also an independent institution from the government, the President does not have direct control the same was the POTUS does. Regardless of who "wins", this is unlikely to be good in the short term, the military taking over will not put an end to the secularist/Islamist divide in Turkey, and could spark a civil war. If Erdogan does stay in power (and there are already theories floating around that the whole thing is a front to take over the military and get rid of people he doesn't like), that will cause its own problems. Hentropy (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think in general it's dangerous for the military to be too strong and popular (as is often the case in e.g. Latin America). Especially since it tends to tilt to the right politically. On the other hand most state military forces are - arguably - if not outright secular at least less likely to be religious nutcases. Though Argentine and Pinochet were a different case of religious. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Depends what the coup was for. Remember; this is Turkey. The military repeatedly has coups whenever the leadership becomes too religious. That is a good thing, maybe, kind of. Erdogan has consistently become more dogmatic and has been restricting the military to remain in power, which is a bad thing, kind of. So we'll have to see how this plays out. CorruptUser (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to see someone is backing me up on this. Update: Turkey's parliament building has been bombed by jet aircraft. 00:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is true that Turkey is not a stranger to coups and I couldn't help but laugh a little when one of the 'experts' on CNN said "the US doesn't ally with countries that have military coups." In general if the military has taken control, it is a good thing for "us" and a good thing for secularism in that area, but... not so great for the idea that the people should be the ones who decide who their government is. If a democratically elected leader actively undermines democracy and separation of powers, is the "democratic" thing to do to oust him without a new election? Obviously we would never tolerate the military deciding the person in the white house is unacceptable and then ousting him, no matter how bad he was, so should there be a different standard for Turkey or Egypt before them? It's one of those philosophical questions that it would be nice to have a more solid, practical answer to. Hentropy (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I completely agree with Castaigne2 here, this coup is horrendously bad. Even if this coup attempt fails it will likely lead to more violence if not a civil war like Botswana. If this coup does succeed the government that is installed will likely end up in the same way Sisi has taken over Egypt. There are no bloodless coups.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 01:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Except for that post-modern coup, where in 1997 Turkey's military sent a letter to the leader ordering him to resign. CorruptUser (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that government was forced out without dissolving the parliament or suspending the constitution, so it really doesn't count as a coup in political science, but meh.
 * It should be noted that the rule of law as laid out by the Turkish Constitution of 1982 was followed at the time. There was no law against the military memorandum, and the dissolving of government was voluntary. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's called a "post modern" coup. CorruptUser (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And which is I really despise imprecision in terms. That's why everyone thinks a representative republic is a total democracy. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WTF is a "total democracy"??--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 04:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 04:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC) If the rule of law is being followed then it isn't a "coup" in the traditional sense. AFAIK, there wasn't even a stretch in the process to remove the President like there was in the US for Clinton's impeachment.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 01:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A bloodless coup is still a coup. The military may've not shot, but they held the government at gunpoint. --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 04:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 04:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about a bloodless coup not being a coup, only that a coup must bend or break the rule of law and they didn't seem to do that in '97. I would consider what happened to Roussef to be a coup but it was still bloody since they have cut welfare and the police budgets which have resulted in more violence and death.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 04:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This violence and death wasn't done by the coup, though, at least not directly.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 05:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 05:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an externality that was directly caused by the coups outcome so I think you can blame Temer for this violence and death.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 05:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Some reports out now are saying that the coup is not being lead by the secular military, but a faction of Gulenist Islamists in the military. Also, indications are that the coup is failing as the Navy and the 3rd Army commanders have both come out as loyalists. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read reports of fighting against police forces and the main forces of the military have fired on the renegades. This may very well lead to a civil war depending on how influential this action ends up being. Even if a civil doesn't occur, Erdogan will likely use this to take as much draconian power as possible.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 02:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt that a civil war will occur because the support for AKP is so widespread geographically. It's possible, sure. The Gulenists have condemned the coup, so it's not them. The coup people are flying helicopters over Ankara right now, at least I think it's them. That means Erdogan clearly can't get a genuine air cover, which is interesting. There is ongoing gunfire in Ankara right now, so whatever is happening isn't even close to being over. 02:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the Gulenist have most likely condemned this coup because it has become unlikely for it to succeed. Assuming the Gulenist have anything to do with this then the US is in an even more problematic situation since Erdogan will likely try to extradite Gulen and the US will not extradite him. If a civil war doesn't break, IMO the securalist in Turkey are doomed since Erdogan will purge the military as his first act back.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 03:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Erdogan is doing a live speech in Istanbul. They're fucking doing the Roman salute. This is like North Korea, ISIS, Assad, and Saddam. 03:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and, here's the chants of "Allahu Akhbar". *drink* 03:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The people support him. What did you expect would happen? Anytime a coup has succeeded in Turkey, it's been because there wasn't popular support for the existing civilian government. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ^This and that the military was clearly divided on this with very little support from the top brass. If any of these coup commanders had leanings towards the Gulen movement then rhis will confirm all of Erdogan's fears and he will use this to purge the military and judicial system. He will also use this new support to gut the military's power and centralise as much power to the executive. The only thing that can save the Geulenists, leftists, secularists, and republicans now is if they decide to start a civil war. Ironically, this coup has doomed Turkish democracy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 04:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, coup looks like it's almost over. What exactly were they planning with only a small fraction of the military? What happened? StickySock (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Inside job?--Mercian (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well unlike previous coups this one would most likely not restore democracy quickly because Erdogan and his party had a large amount of support. It appears they played their hand too soon and the country will pay for it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 16:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Coup Part 2: Electric Boogaloo
Now Erdoğan has called for the extradition of Gülen from the US to Turkey, despite not providing any evidence he was involved. As a bargaining chip, Erdoğan has had the Turkish authorities besiege the US airbase at Inçirlik, cut electricity (US has backup generators), and stopped all US air sorties from that base against ISIS. Erdogan is literally not allowing the US to bomb ISIS from his country. It accused airplanes from Inçirlik of refueling coup fighter jets that bombed Ankara's Parliament (again without evidence). Hey coup-opposers, you think the coup members would've pulled this shit if they had won? What are you going to say now? 03:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that I don't give a shit about ISIS anyway, I don't care that they are not being bombed.
 * Personally, I call for pulling all military forces out of the Middle East and Europe anyway, so I say we shut down the base and pull out of there. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pb, the military tortured and disappeared people during both the previous coups in Turkey so I would expect this to happen. You seem convinced that the coup would've restored Turkey's secular democracy but this was unlikely since a majority of people still supported Erdogan; these people would've likely voted for Erdogan or whoever the AKP leader was after the military allowed elections again. Therefore, this coup wouldn't have ended the junta and would've likely ended up like Egypt with an authoritarian military leader. Assuming that this coup was mostly Gulenists, that would've allowed Gulen to become the unelected leader and women's rights would've taken a tumble along with secularism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 07:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This coup wasva terrible idea no matter how you look at it:
 * The military doesn't get to overthrow a president and a political with a massive voter base who has been decisively (re-)elected in every election since 2003.
 * The coup wasn't even by conducted the entire military, but a rather small clique, apparently centred on the airforce and gendarmerie.
 * The coup was, in the words of one Danish professor of Middle Eastern studies "amateurish" in both planning, timing and implementation and thus highly unlikely to succeed (e.g. weak support, failure to arrest Erdogan, failure to gain momentum, trying to overthrow a democratically elected government while it is physically in the country - as are quite a number of NATO troops etc.)
 * Being unlikely to succeed, it was not exactly rocket science to predict that Erdogan would use a failed coup to further clamp down on the opposition, both in the "deep state" and his democratically elected opponents.
 * So, the question is, why in the name of Zeus' butt-hole did these "coup generals" think it was a great idea to launch a half-baked, half-assed coup against a quite popular president? My only explanation is that they probably thought that Erdogan and the AKP would meekly fold (i.e. wishful thinking) and that they hoped to be able to pull off a Morsi/Sissi (more wishful thinking: Turkey is not Egypt and Erdogan is the head of a well-entrenched democratic ruling party, not a recently elected political party that can be easily demonised as a sort of Al-Qaeda light in business suits trying to handle a newly (re)instated democracy after decades of de facto military rule).
 * All in all: Bad idea, bad effort, bad result - you get an F. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The military should never rule a nation. Even in severe circumstances where there is no option but to declare martial law it should be a civilian who has the final say.--Mercian (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the military shouldn't remove domestic threats to the nation? Should the military not be able to depose leaders who are actively providing aid and comfort to the nation's declared enemies? 19:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since historically this has led to total fascism and repressive authoritarian regimes, yes, the military shouldn't remove domestic threats to the nation.
 * There is a specific reason why we have the Posse Comitatus Act here in the USA. There is a specific reason why we have excluded the military from having a role in the electoral politics of the USA.
 * I have great suspicion at your seeming predilection to use the military as a quick-and-dirty method for taking care of political opponents you don't care for. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a quick fact check, the air base in question is not a US airbase, but rather a Turkish one that the US, UK, and Saudis all use in conjunction with the Turks, and I can imagine the French have used it recently as well. Its principle operator is still the Turks, however, so them screwing with it was more of a slap to the Turkish military than the US one. I doubt even Erdogan would be stupid enough to think that we would just hand over Gulen in one day. The commander at the air based was arrested, but as of today (the 17th), coalition forces have resumed air activity against Daesh, even if power is still cut to parts of the base. Hentropy (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Would the coup have been successful if Erdoğan had been killed?
Just a thought, had the coup succeeded if the undoubted leader of the "other side" had died in the process? I mean there does not seem to be an heir apparent of second in command for the AKP. And the military could have taken over decisively in the time it would have taken for such a successor figure to emerge. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not since this renegade faction would've been defeated for being too uncoordinated. Maybe AKP wouldn't be able to find a leader like him but they would surely continue to control Turkey with a majority.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 17:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Might have led to civil war.
 * While ISIS is right on Turkey's border...
 * Europe couldn't handle a million Syrians. Just imagine the chaos for 10 million Turks.  Damn coup should never have been started if they didn't have a good chance of winning. CorruptUser (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Glass-Steagall
I have serious concerns with calling support for a new Glass-Steagall a "stopped clock" moment on the Republican side when the economic concensus is that its repeal did not contribute to the financial crisis (it actually allowed some former investment banks to access short time loans from the Fed they would not have been allowed to receive otherwise, i.e. with Glass-Steagal the crisis might have been worse.) Instead it introduced competition and diversified the financial markets. Mind also, that this proposal comes from the same platform set on repealing Dodd-Frank which actually introduced measures to prevent further crisis. The links themselves are fine, though. 128.176.164.39 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The repeal of Glass-Steagall, along with other financial deregulation that Congress passed in the 90s and 2000s, contributed to the culture of corporate freedom that led to the financial crisis and the Great Recession. Separating commercial banks from investment banks decreases risk and increases consumer confidence in the financial market. I think that a modern Glass-Steagal should be adopted, banning CDOs, ending the sale of subprime mortgages, and limiting risky betting on the performance of consumer commodities. This would ensure stability in the financial market, hedging risk and ensuring a safer market. 23:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Ensuring" may be a strong word, there's no such thing as ensured stability in financial markets. At most the absence Glass-Steagll and certain investment regulations contributed to the financial crisis, but the failing simply wasn't all policy or things the government could control. It was the short-term greed and "conventional wisdom" of those working in it, that housing prices would never go down and that the good loans would always cover the bad, that caused the crisis. And even if you nationalize the banks, unless you also nationalize the entire real estate business along with it, it could happen again, with or without Glass-Steagall or even tighter regulations. Maybe it wouldn't have been as bad with those things, I am all in favor of reimposing Glass-Steagall and tighter regulations, but it's far from a silver bullet that would have prevented the whole mess. Hentropy (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"Scheiss-Ausländer!"
Another terrorist attacks, and of course it was Mus—

Oops! It wasn't Muslims this time!

I was amused by all of the right-wingers on the internet immediately blaming Muslims without looking at the evidence first. One of the guys who did it shouted "Scheisse Ausländer!", or fucking foreigner. There was a video of him saying this on the rooftop. I'd encourage you to look for it. This attack was from white German right-wing men, against Muslim refugees.

I'm posting this because someone has to start the thread. Thoughts? I'd love to hear from resident German Kugelschreiber for his opinion on all this. 19:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When I heard about the attack at work roughly an hour ago, one of the Pegida/AfD supporters said that it was bound to happen because of the refugee stream without having any evidence that it was actually a refugee/foreigner/Muslim. It's interesting to note how the media is starting to change its lingo from "terror attack" to "rampage" depending on who does a murder spree. 19:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your regressive attitudes are showing. There is zero evidence either way, and as of yet, no reputable sources have anything solid. Mainstream news think Islamic background is likely, because location, time, how (city, shopping mall, friday evening); whereas Right Wing was deemed “implausible” but not impossible. Unlike other cases, this is also remarkably opaque. ~ Aneris 20:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Guess what Aneris? Mainstream news is BULLSHIT! It seems like right-wing Germans did this. The shooter spoke with Bavarian slang. After the smoke clears, the media will get the story right: German shooters did this atrocity. Mark my words.   21:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Words marked, you are probably wrong already (Iranian-German is not your usual Nazi), but that isn't the point. The point is that you badly wanted your agenda pushed when the bodies weren't even cold and the authorities were remarkably opaque about this whole situation. Even when your prediction turned out to be correct, you here are appalling for demanding that everyone jumps to conclusions because you just can't hold out a day or three. I'm refering to the article. ~ Aneris 03:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which mainstream news say Islamic background is likely? Certainly not Lügenpresse German mainstream media. Munich police as of yet rules out an Islamist background. And where in my statement did I say that it was an absolute certainty of it being right-wing extremists? I merely pointed out that people were immediately sure that the attack has been carried out by ISIS sympathizers at the very moment they heard of the story. You called me "regressive", you're really an expert on how to hurt others' feelings, lol. 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you really blame the media for showing some confusion and unaccurate info right as this kind of event is happening? They're not omniscient, if circumstances point more probably to ISIS terrorism, then that's what they're gonna go with in the heat of the action. It has shit to do with them being "mainstream" (hint: non-mainstream media is just as likely to contain bullshit than mainstream media). Nice to see you being your disturbingly grotty self as always, PB: you sure showed the right-wing assholes that don't actually exist on this site how full of shit they are! @Name: I don't really see the problem in qualifying the same event two different ways depending on who commited it. A rampage and a terror attack might take the same form, but the same thing they're not. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously Obama and Hillary planned it as a false flag to take attention away from Fuhrer Trump's rally. Only regressive leftists would deny this! --Ymir (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am surprised nobody has brought up Jews, yet... Also is "scheisse Ausländer" actual correct German? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * CNN was the main network with the shitty-ass coverage. They kept guessing "ISIS? Was it ISIS? Maybe it was ISIS!". Then they played a clip of Trump from yesterday saying "I will make us so safe". Great Nazi propaganda CNN. Meanwhile, FOX FUCKING NEWS said it might be a German Neo-Nazi or other right-winger. When FOX is better than CNN, you know CNN's a total dogshit network. They've steadily declined over the decades. 00:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Munich's police have identified the suspected shooter as an 18 year old local of Iranian descent. Nothing else said so far in the press conference over than the train services will go ahead as normal tomorrow.-- Forerunner (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the gunman was of mixed German-Iranian ethnicity. He didn't say "Ali Madad" or any Shia slogans. Plus almost all Muslim terrorists are Sunnis, so it's not Islam. This guy grew up on German welfare. 00:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are joking, right? While Al Qaeda is Sunni, the Sunni terrorists copied the successful fanaticism of the Shia from the Lebanon Marine barracks bombing that caused the US to withdraw.  Before then, Sunni suicide attacks were incredibly rare. CorruptUser (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Beirut Bombing was nothing compared to the Cole, embassy bombings, and 9/11. But that's a fine point. I'm talking about today, not 30 years ago. Get your mind out of the past, CorruptUser. 00:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If we are going by him being a Shi'a Iranian, and not a Sunni Iranian migrant, then it is puzzling. After all, the two major Islamist terrorist groups in Europe are al-Qaeda and DAESH, who are technically and officially all Sunni, respectively, with the latter identifying Iran as an enemy at war. I'm going with Max Abram's idea of him being a "Lune Wolf" - someone with mental health problems who's already considering mass-murder and pretends to be an ideological terrorist to look intimidating (like that gay bar shooter who pretended to be part of DAESH and Hezbollah).-- Forerunner (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, Cole killed not even a tenth of the people as Beirut.  so it's not clear how to categorize them.  They even allied with Al Qaeda at a number of points.  And there are a lot more Sunni than Shia.  That's not getting into Iraq, with all the Shia groups that were bombing the crap out of anyone.
 * This is the third time in one conversation where you have the facts predominantly wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. This guy wasn't a jihadi, or even a Muslim. He was motivated by 03:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * CNN and BBC both have nothing about the guy other than he was a dual citizen of Iran and Germany. So we'll just have to wait and see what it was all about.  Probably just a normal spree killer, but best not to speculate until there's actual proof. CorruptUser (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A question that should be raised is: How does an 18 year old get his hands on a gun? Apparently the German gun laws are too lax. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He bought it illegaly off the street. Laws can't stop criminals from getting guns, as evidenced by this shooting. Therefore it's pointless to try and regulate guns, since they end up in the hands of bandits anyways. 17:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is as misguided rubbish as is your opening. Not having weapons around everywhere prevents most of the shootings that plague the USA, where someone just needs to be in a personal crisis or bad spot and can kill himself or others (not to mention the accidents that happen all the time). It also makes routine encounters with police less dangerous, because they can assume that people are generally not armed, which makes it much less stressful and less deadly for everyone involved. As to your opening quote and basis for the rubbish article here: The xenophobic slurs were hurled AT the shooter when he pulled out his guns and panic broke out, because he's presumably foreign looking (we now know he's Iranian-German). He then replies BACK to them that he was German. None of this, ever, suggested a right wing motive. The media the RW lambasted in the article did not treat this poorly at all. This is just the usual Dunning-Kruger Effect that acommompanies everything regressives touch, being total cocksure about everything without as much as an afterthought that one might be wrong. ~ Aneris 17:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris don't worry. I'm just using NewFrenchHotness logic. In other words, I'm showing how stupid that person's argumentative style is. But I'm loving Aneris' shouts of REGRESSIVE!!!!1!1!1!1!11 when he has no argument against me. 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I presented you the arguments. And everyone can read them just above. No need to play obtuse. ~ Aneris 17:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, I agree with every fucking word you said. I just pointed out how stupid NewFrenchHotness', attitude about everything is, which as namely "everything sucks, so we shouldn't try to do anything to make the world better". I am in total agreement with your points, Aneris, except for your instashouting "REGRESSIVE!". 17:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, PB? If you have problems with me or my "argumentative style", talk it over with me, not with Aneris over here, and not by putting words in my mouth and thinking you know my positions when I've said nothing about gun control concerning this subject. Maybe then people will respect you. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)