Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:Saloon bar"
| Line 269: | Line 269: | ||
So yesterday I was at a small seminar sort of deal for class (college). It was supposed to be about the Flint water crisis, but the speaker spoke more about different forms of plumbing. He dedicated a pretty decent amount of the roughly hour and a half he was speaking to Viktor Schauberger. Apparently, Schauberger did some amazing experiments that either defied the laws of physics as they are known or simply more ingenious than what mainstream scientists were capable of. The most important of these was a machine that utilized unknown and/or little known properties of water to create vast amounts of power. A perpetual motion machine. The speaker put in such a way that it seemed he knew very well why people would be skeptical but it was worth looking into. As such, I believe that an article about Viktor Schauberger would be missional due to his crankery. However, I have neither the time nor the will to make an article about him. If somebody else would like to look into the matter and create a page, well that would be just dandy. Also, according to what might be the official website dedicated to Schauberger, he made flying saucers for the Nazis, albeit against his will.[[User:Teurastaja|Teurastaja]] ([[User talk:Teurastaja|talk]]) 12:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC) | So yesterday I was at a small seminar sort of deal for class (college). It was supposed to be about the Flint water crisis, but the speaker spoke more about different forms of plumbing. He dedicated a pretty decent amount of the roughly hour and a half he was speaking to Viktor Schauberger. Apparently, Schauberger did some amazing experiments that either defied the laws of physics as they are known or simply more ingenious than what mainstream scientists were capable of. The most important of these was a machine that utilized unknown and/or little known properties of water to create vast amounts of power. A perpetual motion machine. The speaker put in such a way that it seemed he knew very well why people would be skeptical but it was worth looking into. As such, I believe that an article about Viktor Schauberger would be missional due to his crankery. However, I have neither the time nor the will to make an article about him. If somebody else would like to look into the matter and create a page, well that would be just dandy. Also, according to what might be the official website dedicated to Schauberger, he made flying saucers for the Nazis, albeit against his will.[[User:Teurastaja|Teurastaja]] ([[User talk:Teurastaja|talk]]) 12:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
:See [[RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions|this]].--[[User:JorisEnter|JorisEnter]] ([[User talk:JorisEnter|talk]]) 12:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC) | :See [[RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions|this]].--[[User:JorisEnter|JorisEnter]] ([[User talk:JorisEnter|talk]]) 12:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Deranged MichaeldSuarez (JuniusThaddeus) socking and impersonating RW users, Rome Viharo's page == | ||
| + | |||
| + | MichaeldSuarez (JuniusThaddeus) was banned a while back on this site for troublemaking, and he's just been blocked on another account - Raider Fan. He's a sysop at Encylopedia Dramatica. Although that site is known to not be factual and satrical (it exaggerates or makes stuff up for humor), MichaeldSuarez uses the site to slander and defame people. He will often impersonate people on Rationalwiki, or other forums, type inappropriate things on sockpuppets, and then go back to Encylopedia Dramatica to "document" it i.e. blame innocent people for these statements he has posted. Raider Fan his most recent sockpuppet is someone else's name on ED he has chosen to use to impersonate; I noticed he's behind a tun of accounts on Rome Viharos page, because now on ED he's trying to pin those accounts onto someone else. That's what this guy does he stirs stuff up through his sockpuppet impersonator tactic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | MichaeldSuarez is behind all the following socks on Rome Viharo: | ||
| + | |||
| + | http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Rome_Viharo&offset=&limit=500&action=history | ||
| + | |||
| + | Goblin Face Sciborg S Patel, J Donnis plays guitar, Skeptico forum is gay, but that's entirely acceptable and I in no way oppose their sexual preferences, Sciborg S Patel, Redpenofdoom, OC68 Stevenson Sumo Internetperson, Iantresman, Jon Donnis Goblin Face, and others.[[User:DougWellerisalunatic|DougWellerisalunatic]] ([[User talk:DougWellerisalunatic|talk]]) 17:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:52, 11 May 2016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| To do list |
|---|
Is Star Wars hopping on the "religious people are being persecuted in America" bandwagon or am I the paranoid one?
According to Wookiepedia, Lor San Tekka, the old guy Kylo Ren murders at the beginning of episode 7, is a member of the Church of the Force, an organization which believes the Jedi must exist in order for there to be balance in the force. The page says that in the time of the Empire, belief in the supernatural or religious was forbidden and that people like them were persecuted. (Rather hypocritical since the Emperor himself was a Sith Lord). I sensed an attempt at an allegory here, and was angered that this franchise is giving in to the fundy persecution complex. The original page presents it better than I do: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Church_of_the_Force. Tell me what you think. Am I just taking things too seriously here? — Unsigned, by: TeslaK20 / talk / contribs 09:39, 7 May 2016
- Yeah, probably. Especially if it's an obscure piece of Star Wars lore that only Wookiepedia readers would know about. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 09:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the fact that this is not a major part of Star Wars means that whoever invented it could have easily inserted his own political views into it. --TeslaK20 (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I guess, but what makes you think it's about the United States? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 11:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- i thought the whole persecution of the jedis thing was in it from the get go. Eliminating potential enemies and so forth. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Jedi purge is about eliminating the "priests", "clergy", and "monks". But killing the religious leaders doesn't destroy faith. The prohibition of belief is about destroying the faith altogether. Even Rey thinks Luke Skywalker is a myth. And quite honestly America is rather unique when it comes to this "evangelical christian persecution complex". Also star wars is an american franchise, and there are many christian themes in it. --TeslaK20 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- its also been around since the 70s and religious persecution has been around since forever. Why could it not be about persecution of jews, since its a story about space nazis after all. Or if you are bent on another interpretation, why not persecution of muslims? It is a mistake to shoe horn meaning into something with all the depth of a puddle. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- See the Wikipedia article on Philosophy and religion in Star Wars.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- a whole page of shoe horning. I particularly like 'the name of yoda itself is a play on a the word yoga, the ancient spiritual practise'. So much arse. Any themes present in star wars are at best superficial. You can read all kinds of things into it or into any work of fiction, it does not mean it is there or intended. The simpilicity of the story lends itself to this. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- of course, if we are adding a contemporary spin of persecuted christains, (though a less contemporary reading roman persecution of christians would be more apt), what spin co we apply to the suppression of the sith by an unelected, unaccountable military order of religious extremists? The jedi are isis AMassiveGay (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- a whole page of shoe horning. I particularly like 'the name of yoda itself is a play on a the word yoga, the ancient spiritual practise'. So much arse. Any themes present in star wars are at best superficial. You can read all kinds of things into it or into any work of fiction, it does not mean it is there or intended. The simpilicity of the story lends itself to this. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- See the Wikipedia article on Philosophy and religion in Star Wars.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- its also been around since the 70s and religious persecution has been around since forever. Why could it not be about persecution of jews, since its a story about space nazis after all. Or if you are bent on another interpretation, why not persecution of muslims? It is a mistake to shoe horn meaning into something with all the depth of a puddle. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Jedi purge is about eliminating the "priests", "clergy", and "monks". But killing the religious leaders doesn't destroy faith. The prohibition of belief is about destroying the faith altogether. Even Rey thinks Luke Skywalker is a myth. And quite honestly America is rather unique when it comes to this "evangelical christian persecution complex". Also star wars is an american franchise, and there are many christian themes in it. --TeslaK20 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- i thought the whole persecution of the jedis thing was in it from the get go. Eliminating potential enemies and so forth. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I guess, but what makes you think it's about the United States? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
- Actually, the fact that this is not a major part of Star Wars means that whoever invented it could have easily inserted his own political views into it. --TeslaK20 (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it might be prudent to point out that the part of history that it most resembles is when Hadrian made large scale restrictions to Judaism after putting down the Bar Kokhba Revolt.Teurastaja (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think that some religions really do struggle to get properly recognized by society and the state. Consider this one for a moment. Its followers suffer mockery and isolation.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- It could very much be taken from the supression of Christians in ancient Rome. Star Wars has stolen enough elements from Isaac Asimov. Why not the Rome allegory too? --TeslaK20 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I never got this impression at all from Star Wars. Notably, the Jedis are not a religion (this "Church of the Force" apparently notwithstanding). The Jedi Order that was destroyed during the Great Jedi Purge was in no way a religious body, they were not followed by believers, they did not act as religious leaders in any way. They were basically a well respected order of diplomats and special forces police types who had supernatural powers. Also, the "had supernational powers" thing is important, the core premise of the religions we know is *faith* in the supernatural, but the denizens of Star Wars don't need any faith to believe in the force, since, you know, a Jedi could lift stuff with their mind and such. The Empire suppressed knowledge of the Force and the Jedi, but not because it was religious, Sideous just didn't want force-weilding usurpers showing up left and right. The persecution was entirely political. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- its referred to as a religion in the first movie, and there was much talk about belief in the force. Luke is always being told to use the force in a similar vein as being told have faith, particularly in the trench run. The jedi are very much the priests. Acting as diplomats didnt appear until the later unpleasantness, though their actions and motivations are very much religious in nature. Anakin was meant be some kind of chosen one, the sith were heretics. Sure there is a lot of political manoeuvring, but so there is in real religions. I believe the catholics were none too keen on prostestants taking their power either. It does not matter that it not exactly like real world religions, because its a movie. The fact they have access to magic powers is irrelevant - its a work of sci-fi/fantasy. Religions with actual working magic and real gods and spirits are the norm. There are no followers in the first movies as its a dead religion. You dont see any in the later movies, well you dont really see anything of what the proles are upto, but jedi are still seen as a moral authority, much like priests of real religions often are. I will say again - you should not read to much into star wars. Its themes are at best superficial, its full of plot holes, questionable ethics, and hokey dialogue. It should enjoyed as simple good vs evil story. It does not bare close scrutiny. This is the problem with the later films. Convoluted plots and angst does not equal depth nor compelling story telling, but it does suck all the fun out of it. This is what comes of playing to obsessive fans and the yod awful extended universe. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Star wars isnt really about religion, its about powerful forces beyond our control that can easily destroy us from within, much like the cthulu mythos. Sandflapjack (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- its not about any of that either, since the whole point of luke's arch is him mastering control of the force. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
While there are certain references to history in our world, like the stormtroopers, I think for the most part it's just a series of space action movies that were popular enough to expand into a whole fictional universe with tons of books, two more trilogies, and a tabletop role-playing game where I blew myself up along with my fellow players and an enemy with a thermal detonator. It's just lore for a fictional world, like Lord of Rings D&D, and Warhammer/Warhammer40,000 (granted the the first example was built around the Catholic beliefs of J.R.R. Tolkein).Teurastaja (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Why do you guys think Trump can win?
Reading through this discussion, as well as others around the site, I've seen quite a few people who strongly assert that Trump has a strong chance of winning the U.S. election. However, my understanding is that everyone pretty much despises him across the isle, the exceptions being his supporters themselves. I don't see any way he could appeal to democrats and independents if he can't even appeal to a substantial amount of his own party. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Because all too many users of this site have substituted paranoia for polling. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Romney was a rather miserable failure and he only antagonized 47% of the electorate. Make of that what you will. Vulpius (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- All that's certain is that voter turnout is gonna increase massively compared to previous years. There'll be plenty of people voting just to keep Trump out (unless they stay home because they think Trump's defeat is a done deal), but besides faithful Trump supporters there'll probably be a bunch of joke, troll, protest and apocalyptic dare votes for Trump too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it'll be down. More people fall into "don't want to vote for EITHER" than "want to vote against Hillary" and "against Donald" combined, as I understand it. That said, the "against Donald" group is bigger than the "against Hillary" group. FuzzyCatPotato of the Exotic Rutabagas (talk/stalk) 23:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- (a) Low turnout on the Democratic side (Hillary represents status quo, Sanders supporters demoralized; (b) pissed off crossover voters; 14% of Repubs (which are fewer in number to Dems anyway) vow to vote for Hillary vs 20% of Dems vowing to vote for Trump; net gain for Trump: 6%+; (c) as estimates of the of the Elector College stand now, Hillary needs 33, Trump 46; (d) general responsive chord struck among a broad swath of the public - Democrats, Republicans, & unaffiliated - to Trumps 'anti-political correctness' message. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 00:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Nobs. How do you explain current polls, using that methodology? Is Trump just so unlikeable that even this supposed competitive advantage isn't enough to push him to above 50%? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, (1) you have to look at the polls in the specific battleground states that are key to an Electoral win (national popular vote polls are meaningless); (2) after last Tuesday's events (Trump's NY win & Cruz & Kasich out), polling data coming out now and the next few days will give some idea where we're at. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 01:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Here's source on the 33-46 Electoral count, an interesting read. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 02:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your source doesn't support your statement ("Trump need 46 more electoral college votes to win.") It supports the statement "Trump is 46 behind Hillary, who needs 33 more to win," which implies trump need 79 more to win. Do you find yourself regularly making things up? Hipocrite (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, so I misread it, the "Third Way, the leading centrist Democratic group". I was wondering why they skipped the much more respected Larry Sabato
's count that has Hillary winning with 347. We'll just have to wait for Sabato's revisions after the momentous events of the past week. But I won't make that mistake again of using the Third Way. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC) - Here's the key states, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. Hillary will be the inevitable nominee "barring the unlikely event that we still live in a country governed by the rule of law". Further analysis of the Quinnipac poll shows not having Sanders on the ticket automatically costs Hillary two points. [1] nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 21:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, so I misread it, the "Third Way, the leading centrist Democratic group". I was wondering why they skipped the much more respected Larry Sabato
- Your source doesn't support your statement ("Trump need 46 more electoral college votes to win.") It supports the statement "Trump is 46 behind Hillary, who needs 33 more to win," which implies trump need 79 more to win. Do you find yourself regularly making things up? Hipocrite (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Nobs. How do you explain current polls, using that methodology? Is Trump just so unlikeable that even this supposed competitive advantage isn't enough to push him to above 50%? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- "doesn't like either", sure. But most people, I think, would still vote for the lesser of evils in favour of risking the 'big bad' getting elected. Third party candidates will probably see a significant increase in votes too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- (a) Low turnout on the Democratic side (Hillary represents status quo, Sanders supporters demoralized; (b) pissed off crossover voters; 14% of Repubs (which are fewer in number to Dems anyway) vow to vote for Hillary vs 20% of Dems vowing to vote for Trump; net gain for Trump: 6%+; (c) as estimates of the of the Elector College stand now, Hillary needs 33, Trump 46; (d) general responsive chord struck among a broad swath of the public - Democrats, Republicans, & unaffiliated - to Trumps 'anti-political correctness' message. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 00:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't think "joke, troll, protest and apocalyptic dare votes" will be anywhere near numerous enough to even dent Trump's utter lack of support from minorities :/ Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you're free to think so, but I wouldn't underestimate the American potential for political wackiness. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, assuming her server had nothing that there is nothing within her private server that the Republicans can fearmonger on (or worse result in an indictment) it wouldn't be guaranteed he wins. I realize that this is anecdotal but every Republican I have met who won't vote for Trump would rather vote for him against Hillary or Bernie or they would rather vote for Bernie but will vote Trump over Clinton. I haven't seen a lot of support from independents and I don't think there is a reliable voting block outside of older Americans. I think Trump could adopt some of Bernie's platform like he has with the minimum wage which may help entice minorities to vote for him; he has been pro-universal health care in the past. Both have a lot of name recognition but I think that if you took the most ignorant Americans and asked them about Trump and Clinton they would remember something "criminal" about Clinton and not Trump; most of his supporters I know think his mouth is the worst part of him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Already has. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, assuming her server had nothing that there is nothing within her private server that the Republicans can fearmonger on (or worse result in an indictment) it wouldn't be guaranteed he wins. I realize that this is anecdotal but every Republican I have met who won't vote for Trump would rather vote for him against Hillary or Bernie or they would rather vote for Bernie but will vote Trump over Clinton. I haven't seen a lot of support from independents and I don't think there is a reliable voting block outside of older Americans. I think Trump could adopt some of Bernie's platform like he has with the minimum wage which may help entice minorities to vote for him; he has been pro-universal health care in the past. Both have a lot of name recognition but I think that if you took the most ignorant Americans and asked them about Trump and Clinton they would remember something "criminal" about Clinton and not Trump; most of his supporters I know think his mouth is the worst part of him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you're free to think so, but I wouldn't underestimate the American potential for political wackiness. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it'll be down. More people fall into "don't want to vote for EITHER" than "want to vote against Hillary" and "against Donald" combined, as I understand it. That said, the "against Donald" group is bigger than the "against Hillary" group. FuzzyCatPotato of the Exotic Rutabagas (talk/stalk) 23:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- All that's certain is that voter turnout is gonna increase massively compared to previous years. There'll be plenty of people voting just to keep Trump out (unless they stay home because they think Trump's defeat is a done deal), but besides faithful Trump supporters there'll probably be a bunch of joke, troll, protest and apocalyptic dare votes for Trump too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Romney was a rather miserable failure and he only antagonized 47% of the electorate. Make of that what you will. Vulpius (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- try not to listen to the minority of bernie cultists. Trump will be crushed under hillary's boot like a fine ballsack in that porn i accidentally stumbled apon. Sandflapjack (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree. What are you basing that on? I think the electoral map will end up looking something like this, give or take a few states. You really do overestimate this country. I feel like its May 2000, and people are saying that Bush is too dumb for the American people to elect him. Just you wait. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, good luck with that one.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- What exactly are you referring to, Owlman? With regards to me, my state doesn't allow me to vote, but if I could I would most likely vote for Bernie Sanders in a write-in ballot, or perhaps the Green Party candidate if Bernie Sanders insists people don't vote for him. Sandflapjack, if you're calling me a Bernie cultist, count me in. I can't imagine a likely scenario in which I would vote for Hillary Clinton. This isn't a choice between 2 bad things. This is the choice not to do bad things. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- And then he got reelected 4 years later. How did that even happen? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
- Yeah, good luck with that one.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree. What are you basing that on? I think the electoral map will end up looking something like this, give or take a few states. You really do overestimate this country. I feel like its May 2000, and people are saying that Bush is too dumb for the American people to elect him. Just you wait. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
What the fuck is this shit? The GOP establishment know they can't win the presidency with Trump. He'll be annihilated exactly as Goldwater was in 64. Robledo (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- And the GOP establishment knew they would win with Romney, Walker, Jeb Bush, et al.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- They've been wrong. Doesn't mean they can't be right. And they certainly are here. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no guarentee he will win but he has so easily molded himself that he may be abe to win over Latino voters which could help him win. Wither way, though, the House will fall to the Dems.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Trump would have to campaign through Mexico speaking Spanish in order to win over Latinos at this point. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- And Clinton is so much more popular. If Trump promises to keep the undocumented immigrants already here and help them get on Social Security and Medicare along with adopting various parts of Sanders platform then he may change their mind.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Promise to keep the undocumented immigrants he's promised to deport? What the fuck are you smoking? Robledo (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- While I don't think he'd go there (or that it'd matter much at this point), he has made a bunch of contradictory statements throughout his campaign. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
- Promise to keep the undocumented immigrants he's promised to deport? What the fuck are you smoking? Robledo (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- And Clinton is so much more popular. If Trump promises to keep the undocumented immigrants already here and help them get on Social Security and Medicare along with adopting various parts of Sanders platform then he may change their mind.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Trump would have to campaign through Mexico speaking Spanish in order to win over Latinos at this point. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no guarentee he will win but he has so easily molded himself that he may be abe to win over Latino voters which could help him win. Wither way, though, the House will fall to the Dems.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 01:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- They've been wrong. Doesn't mean they can't be right. And they certainly are here. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
For reference, Lott-Stossel's Election Betting Odds have a 72.2% and rising chance Hillary wins, and 23.0% and falling chance Trump wins. The Chart shows Hillary's chances up and up. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I want you all to mark my words and remember what I said: Trump will be the next president of the United States. If I'm right, well I predicted it all along. If I'm wrong, well that's
greatalright. I think the polls will do a massive turnaround from what they are right now as the loyal Republican electorate warms to Trump and realizes how much they don't want a third term of Barack Obama (Hillary Clinton). Romney lost by a far lesser margin in 2012 than McCain did in 2008. Only a few percentage points. This entire election has been a case study of the result being the opposite of what was predicted. People said a socialist stood no chance and couldn't get lasting support. Sanders did, and he almost won the nomination (who knows, maybe he will?). People said no way Trump could win the nomination. He did. And now Trump, the maverick outsider who promises to transform Washington, is running against the quintessential Washington sellout politician. Who do you honestly think the American people are going to pick. Be honest. Look in your heart. The polls today may show Hillary with a 7-point lead over Trump, but that will all change between now and November. It's going to be him. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)- Have you any fucking idea quite how tiny a percentage of the total US electorate has actually voted for Trump thus far in the primaries? Robledo (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- a shit load can happen before november. I wouldnt rule anything out till the votes have all been counted. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- In response to Robledo: It is true that Hillary leads by a few points over Trump in total votes so far. But that can turn around. Liberal and Democratic voters (Bernie voters) are a lot more principled than the average Republican voter. Most (>75%) of the voters who voted against Trump in the primary will fall into line and vote for him in the general just like they did with Romney, McCain, etc. On the other hand, we have polls showing at least one-third of Bernie voters (including myself) do not intend to vote for Hillary in November. That kind of disloyalty among base voters can kill a campaign (Goldwater, Bush 41), and it's not something Hillary is going to like. The difference between Bernie voters and Cruz/Rubio supporters is that Bernie supporters are principled and care about issues. That's why they won't go for Clinton nearly as much. It's the kind of thing that, when combined with other factors (opponent is very popular among certain groups, you are blatantly corrupt and have more baggage than the fucking airlines), can cause a campaign like Hillary's to flop in November. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Liberal and Democratic voters (Bernie voters) are a lot more principled than the average Republican voter.
- HAHAHA. Good joke there, mate. Remember how every conservative failure is blamed on them "not being a true conservative"? Yeah. Same shit doesn't happen with the Dems. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- In response to Robledo: It is true that Hillary leads by a few points over Trump in total votes so far. But that can turn around. Liberal and Democratic voters (Bernie voters) are a lot more principled than the average Republican voter. Most (>75%) of the voters who voted against Trump in the primary will fall into line and vote for him in the general just like they did with Romney, McCain, etc. On the other hand, we have polls showing at least one-third of Bernie voters (including myself) do not intend to vote for Hillary in November. That kind of disloyalty among base voters can kill a campaign (Goldwater, Bush 41), and it's not something Hillary is going to like. The difference between Bernie voters and Cruz/Rubio supporters is that Bernie supporters are principled and care about issues. That's why they won't go for Clinton nearly as much. It's the kind of thing that, when combined with other factors (opponent is very popular among certain groups, you are blatantly corrupt and have more baggage than the fucking airlines), can cause a campaign like Hillary's to flop in November. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- a shit load can happen before november. I wouldnt rule anything out till the votes have all been counted. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Have you any fucking idea quite how tiny a percentage of the total US electorate has actually voted for Trump thus far in the primaries? Robledo (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and for reference: early polls tend to show an anti-establishment bias. If Trump is the anti, then Clinton is the establishment. George Wallace did very well in early polls and got absolutely crushed for the same reason. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, Wallace never became a presidential nominee to the one the oldest US political parties.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 03:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Reagan coalition is dead. Trump is re-making the GOP in his own image. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity Nobs. I believe you are an American Conservative - are you going to vote for Trump? Will you encourage others to do so?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pbfreespace3 post above nails the issues solidly. The choice is status quo vs change, not personalities or parties. Look at the Right track/Wrong track polls, or Obama approval, etc. Who represents change, and who represents status quo and the establishment? As a true blue progressive Republican conservative in the Wisconsin tradition (as Ryan, RNC Chairman Priebus, and Scott Walker are), I am content being part of the conservative minority in the "big tent" coalition Trump is building. The situation reminds me very much of the conservative movement spawned by Bill Buckley in the Eisenhower era. Somebody has to stay behind in the party (I now Bill Kristol is ready to bolt) to advise all these misguided idiot moderate, non-party affiliated, and Democratic defectors Trump is assembling. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 20:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nobs - So does that mean, yes, you are going to vote for Donald Trump as president of the USA?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe not so much a vote for Trump as a vote against Hillary. Trump maybe accused of ethical lapses, but none that have spilled over into criminal investigations. Sure, maybe he screwed someone out of $35,000 in Trump University, but Trump never pretended to be an advocate of women's rights while taking millions of dollars from Saudia Arabia which regularly flogs rape victims. The biggest criticism of Trump's ethics and judgment is advancing the career of Hillary Clinton with donations. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nobs - So does that mean, yes, you are going to vote for Donald Trump as president of the USA?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- The only thing Trump is building is the great big clown car in which he'll happily drive the GOP over the cliff come November. It's going to be immensely funny to watch. Robledo (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- such complacency does not bode well tor the democrats. Folk were saying the same thing when trump first threw his hat in. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Demographics called. Said quit worrying and enjoy the show. Seriously, though, the GOP leadership conducted a forensic analysis of Romney's defeat in 2012 and concluded they had to (massively) improve their standing with female and non-white voters if they were to have any chance of recapturing the White House in 2016. No-one - as far as I'm aware - has seriously contested these findings.
- Almost everything Trump has done to date flies in the face of this analysis. He's alienated the very sections of society the GOP most needs to overturn the Democrats' current advantage in the electoral college. He might have played a great tactical game to secure the nomination in a crowded field of pretty bland, uninspiring Republican candidates, but it's strategic suicide for the upcoming national campaign against Clinton.
- Hillary wins simply by not being Trump. As well as repelling moderates across the board, Trump is such an obviously insincere opportunist that large swathes of the intelligent, educated conservative / evangelical vote will stay at home despite their visceral loathing of Clinton. Whether or not we agree with them, these people have principles and are not about to elect an utterly unprincipled clown to the highest office in the land in favour of someone they (merely) loathe.
- Clinton might lose the support of a few die-hard and irredeemably butthurt Bernie fanboys and -girls, but not in sufficient numbers to keep her strategists up at night. The overwhelming majority of liberal voters will swing behind her, even if she represents an unsatisfyingly centre / centre-right presidency, solely on the grounds of "Dear-God-not-Trump!"
- Trump is essentially left with the same relatively small bunch of dumb, angry, white assholes he managed to fire up in the primaries. And happily, there's not nearly enough of them anymore to carry the presidency. So, aye, relax and enjoy the show. Robledo (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, using that analysis, a Trump victory would all depend on how many white racist crossover voters Trump can lure away from the Democrats to offset the women & minorities he's alienated. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 22:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, on that analysis, Trump is utterly fucked whichever way he decides to jump. He loses if he continues to play to his base, and thus continues to alienate the majority of the electorate; and he loses if he tacks to the centre because he'll both alienate his base, and further repel moderates, by coming across as an opportunistic, flip-flopping charlatan. Robledo (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well put, but here's the problem: you're coming at it as if Trump represents some polar extreme, when in fact both candidates, Hillary & Trump, very much represent centrist attitudes, only Trump as a demonstrated ability to put together a cross-coalition of left-right, liberal-moderate-conservative, Republican-Democrat-unaligned that Hillary only dreams of. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 00:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Which might be fantastic for Trump if that "cross-coalition" amounted to anything more than ten million or so angry assholes dumb enough to vote for him in the primaries. But it doesn't, and he's got precious little chance of convincing the rest of the US that he'd be anything other than a complete fucking disaster as president. Robledo (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well put, but here's the problem: you're coming at it as if Trump represents some polar extreme, when in fact both candidates, Hillary & Trump, very much represent centrist attitudes, only Trump as a demonstrated ability to put together a cross-coalition of left-right, liberal-moderate-conservative, Republican-Democrat-unaligned that Hillary only dreams of. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 00:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, on that analysis, Trump is utterly fucked whichever way he decides to jump. He loses if he continues to play to his base, and thus continues to alienate the majority of the electorate; and he loses if he tacks to the centre because he'll both alienate his base, and further repel moderates, by coming across as an opportunistic, flip-flopping charlatan. Robledo (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, using that analysis, a Trump victory would all depend on how many white racist crossover voters Trump can lure away from the Democrats to offset the women & minorities he's alienated. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 22:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- such complacency does not bode well tor the democrats. Folk were saying the same thing when trump first threw his hat in. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pbfreespace3 post above nails the issues solidly. The choice is status quo vs change, not personalities or parties. Look at the Right track/Wrong track polls, or Obama approval, etc. Who represents change, and who represents status quo and the establishment? As a true blue progressive Republican conservative in the Wisconsin tradition (as Ryan, RNC Chairman Priebus, and Scott Walker are), I am content being part of the conservative minority in the "big tent" coalition Trump is building. The situation reminds me very much of the conservative movement spawned by Bill Buckley in the Eisenhower era. Somebody has to stay behind in the party (I now Bill Kristol is ready to bolt) to advise all these misguided idiot moderate, non-party affiliated, and Democratic defectors Trump is assembling. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 20:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity Nobs. I believe you are an American Conservative - are you going to vote for Trump? Will you encourage others to do so?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Reagan coalition is dead. Trump is re-making the GOP in his own image. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you please delete a talk-page that is being used to discredit this website
Hello,
Wikipedia Admin Douglas Weller had a user page created by him a long time, it was deleted as it was a joke piece but the talk-page was never deleted. See here [2]. This talk-page comes up on Google, and has been used to smear Douglas Weller on various internet forums by pseudoscience advocates who have personal issues with Weller because he is a skeptic. For example the rationalwiki banned member Suarez [3] has a history of linking to this talk-page across the web, accusing innocent people of having created it. Every few months it appears enemies of Doug use the talk-page to vent out their problems with Doug. Is there any chance you can entirely flush this talk-page and remove it? It serves no purpose and is just being used to try and discredit Doug Weller. Thank you. PS2 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Usually talk-pages are not deleted. Unless the community approves, I'll leave it up. That said, I will set it up to be automatically archived, which well get most of its content off of the main page. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Trump Rising: America's political future
While Trump becoming president isn't (all that) likely, despite locking up the Republican nomination, it's hard to deny the American political climate is on the eve of significant changes. Will the Republican Party disintegrate? Would that turn the US into a one-party state or would it open the way for an effective multi-party system? What are your speculations? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:43, 8 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
- I would be surprised if Clinton tolerated the progressive wing of the Democratic party especially if the Republicans implode. So maybe the Green Party or Libertarian Party becomes mainstream.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 03:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- An end of the two-party system in the US? Oh my, this sounds too nice to be true!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 11:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- A two party system is more or less inevitable given first past the post voting and a presidential rather than a parliamentary system. Ideally, the result will be the marginalization of 'movement' conservatives, the Democrats become the center-right party they will become if they elect Clinton and the few sane Republicans join them. While all the left of center current Democrats will be pushed away by the Clintons and reform as a new party on the left. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I dare only dream of such an outcome.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pfft. Nah, the Dems will just get bigger for the next decade, then shift left. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's the economy,stupid. Progressives just might be able to get jobs sometime in the near future, God willing. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 20:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the coalition of racists and white supremacists Trump has built will likely create a populist party. The electoral college pretty much cements a two party system.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Owlman, seriously, what percentage in hard numbers do you feel are racists & white supremacists among the American electorate who participate in the political process? Give a number in percentages of registered voters, public opinion poll respondents, or hard numbers in millions, please. I won't even ask for evidence or data -- feel free to pull a number off the top of your head or out of your asshole, then we can discuss your opinions & observations further. Thank you. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 00:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that isn't his only appeal. He already has half the fucking GOP behind him, and he'll get at least half of the other half by election day. That's a pretty big coalition if you ask me. The majority of Trump voters aren't racists or white supremacists. If they were, he wouldn't be news cuz he wouldn't've won anything. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- At the core of Trumps program & appeal is anti-political correctness (which seems an almost out-dated term already). So there is some talking in code, and just as importantly, what goes unstated. Long before Trump rose to 3% in the polls (May 2015), there was this gagging, suffocating political correctness that stifled voters 1st Amendment rights -- you could not dare criticize Obama, Hillary or other establishment Democrats (basically almost all Superdelegates) because that made you a racist. No fucking way are Americans going to suffer another 8 years of that crap under "the first woman president". If we ever are to elect a woman, I guarantee it will be a Republican where people do not have to walk on egg shells fearing they will called a bigot every 10 minutes. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 01:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that isn't his only appeal. He already has half the fucking GOP behind him, and he'll get at least half of the other half by election day. That's a pretty big coalition if you ask me. The majority of Trump voters aren't racists or white supremacists. If they were, he wouldn't be news cuz he wouldn't've won anything. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Owlman, seriously, what percentage in hard numbers do you feel are racists & white supremacists among the American electorate who participate in the political process? Give a number in percentages of registered voters, public opinion poll respondents, or hard numbers in millions, please. I won't even ask for evidence or data -- feel free to pull a number off the top of your head or out of your asshole, then we can discuss your opinions & observations further. Thank you. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 00:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the coalition of racists and white supremacists Trump has built will likely create a populist party. The electoral college pretty much cements a two party system.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's the economy,stupid. Progressives just might be able to get jobs sometime in the near future, God willing. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 20:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pfft. Nah, the Dems will just get bigger for the next decade, then shift left. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I dare only dream of such an outcome.
- A two party system is more or less inevitable given first past the post voting and a presidential rather than a parliamentary system. Ideally, the result will be the marginalization of 'movement' conservatives, the Democrats become the center-right party they will become if they elect Clinton and the few sane Republicans join them. While all the left of center current Democrats will be pushed away by the Clintons and reform as a new party on the left. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- An end of the two-party system in the US? Oh my, this sounds too nice to be true!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 11:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- You guys are going to be really shocked when Trump wins. How is that going to change American politics? Sodexo Employee (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Republican Party will not disentigrate. They will basically unite around Trump, and win. Even if they don't I don't believe oh, this is the death knell of the GOP! bullshit. The GOP will be just fine. It's a remarkably authoritarian institution compared to the Democrats, and is guaranteed to last for several decades (barring there aren't catastrophic events). I'd be surprised if the Democrats split too, as Bernie voters tend to be pessimistic and depressed anyway. I don't think they're angry enough to split off or vote Green or Libertarian or shit like that. We just aren't that moonbatty. I wish we were, but whatever. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- The GOP, in my lifetime, has been simply an alternative party apparatus with organizations in 50 states that can be used to simply fill a void in the US two party system. Often what unites Republicans in several states, and at the national level, is simply that they are not Democrats (to a certain extent, you have this s a m e t h i n g among some Democrats in some states & at the national level. And in both cases, the party apparatus & voters loyal-to-name-brand are available to somebody, anybody (say, Ike, Goldwater, Reagan, now Trump) to make of it whatever they please to fill the alternative void left by the dissatisfaction with the leadership & governance of the other party. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It's a remarkably authoritarian institution compared to the Democrats
- Pbfreespace3 Who has the means called superdelegates to override the primaries, if the party bigwigs don't like the results?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 10:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)- Both parties have superdelegates. It's just that the Republicans call them "unbound delegates" instead. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Don't they have less of them?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Both parties have superdelegates. It's just that the Republicans call them "unbound delegates" instead. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
He's not gonna win, so I suppose that won't change politics? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Again, I beg to differ. You're wrong on this one, FCP. America doesn't like Hillary. I don't like Hillary. You don't like Hillary. Most of the people here don't like Hillary, and this is a liberal/progressive website. Can't you see the signs? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- And even more people like Trump -- in what appears to be a rising figure. Fully 70% of women don't like him. There's been several national polls that account for state variations and thus calculate expected electoral returns -- Hillary crushes Trump, along the lines of 350 to 200. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a life long Republican, I can see the appeal of Trump. His innovation is to make his racist and bigoted messages explicit, rather than dog-whistled in code. But these same messages have been steadily produced by large segments of the GOP since Nixon's 1968 campaign at least. There is at least a breath of fresh air about that. And when he's not harping on those subjects, he's talking sense about raising taxes, raising the minimum wage, ending free trade deals, and other messages that currently have wide bi-partisan appeal. People across the political spectrum are tired of a stagnant or declining standard of living which is explained as if it were the result of some kind of global weather pattern and justified with pointy-haired boss talk. I certainly don't think Hillary's a shoo-in, especially since she represents something that many people in both parties, and more independent voters, are rejecting. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Raising taxes? Trump? Holy fuck, he'd make a 10trn dent in revenue from cutting them. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think Smerdis is referring to Trump's support for taxing hedge funds. A Clinton v Trump election would run on "negative politics" (voting for candidate B because you don't want candidate A to win) so it all comes down to turnout and looking at what happened during the 2014 midterms tells me where doomed; you need charisma to get people to vote and Clinton has none. We all know that a low turnout helps Republicans and the poor (the Democrats core) aren't turning out to vote; the Dems have also stood by and watch the Republicans enact voter ID laws and gut the Voting Rights Act.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Trump doesn't care about cutting taxes for anyone but himself. Anyone he can paint as an enemy, he'll tax the hell out of 'em and call it justice. Just look at all his proposals on trade and his constant wall-rants. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:47, 9 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
- Owlman's got it right: negative politics leads to low turnout which works to Republicans advantage. The likeability of a candidate doesn't matter. Richard Nixon remains the "most popular" president in American history behind George Washington after his 1972 win. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Trump doesn't care about cutting taxes for anyone but himself. Anyone he can paint as an enemy, he'll tax the hell out of 'em and call it justice. Just look at all his proposals on trade and his constant wall-rants. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:47, 9 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
- I think Smerdis is referring to Trump's support for taxing hedge funds. A Clinton v Trump election would run on "negative politics" (voting for candidate B because you don't want candidate A to win) so it all comes down to turnout and looking at what happened during the 2014 midterms tells me where doomed; you need charisma to get people to vote and Clinton has none. We all know that a low turnout helps Republicans and the poor (the Democrats core) aren't turning out to vote; the Dems have also stood by and watch the Republicans enact voter ID laws and gut the Voting Rights Act.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Raising taxes? Trump? Holy fuck, he'd make a 10trn dent in revenue from cutting them. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a life long Republican, I can see the appeal of Trump. His innovation is to make his racist and bigoted messages explicit, rather than dog-whistled in code. But these same messages have been steadily produced by large segments of the GOP since Nixon's 1968 campaign at least. There is at least a breath of fresh air about that. And when he's not harping on those subjects, he's talking sense about raising taxes, raising the minimum wage, ending free trade deals, and other messages that currently have wide bi-partisan appeal. People across the political spectrum are tired of a stagnant or declining standard of living which is explained as if it were the result of some kind of global weather pattern and justified with pointy-haired boss talk. I certainly don't think Hillary's a shoo-in, especially since she represents something that many people in both parties, and more independent voters, are rejecting. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- And even more people like Trump -- in what appears to be a rising figure. Fully 70% of women don't like him. There's been several national polls that account for state variations and thus calculate expected electoral returns -- Hillary crushes Trump, along the lines of 350 to 200. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
And you think immigrants and Muslims won't turn out, given what he's said? Literally 100% of my first- and second- generation friends are voting for Hillary.
And that's ignoring blacks, women, and liberals who are fucking terrified of a Trump presidency.
Who needs charisma when the opponent is so easily compared to Hitler? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I can't guarantee anything but there I have seen enough hatred for Hillary, again anecdotal, that it would be close. I know people who are black and latino who will vote for Trump because they dislike her, though, the seem to be fringe. I know members of my family who hate him that will vote Trump over Clinton; they voted for him over Cruz. I think he would be able to convince people to vote for him by promising limited amnesty and a larger welfare state. Every conservative I know misses their union or fears that their child will have nothing when they get out of college; they all despise paying for "school choice" and they want to improve life for the poor by creating a stronger middle class. Trump hasn't bashed unions or the poor whereas Clinton has advocated for "school choice", offshoring, cut welfare, and worked for Walmart.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- How will a Trump presidency change RW? Will there be an explosion of cover articles dissecting the Authoritarian poster boy's administration or will it continue to concentrate on the latest MRA vlogger and what Andy said on CP? Never mind, I just answered my own question. Leuders (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Given Trumps pettiness and hatred towards any sort of criticism (and the first amendment itself) we'd likely all be in jail. Just a little slower than personalities like John Oliver and without the twitter mocking of our loved ones. Then we can watch everything go to shit while the private prison contractors starve us and withhold medical care. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's extreme paranoia on par with the wingnuts claiming that Obama's gonna declare martial law or moonbats having claimed, that Dubya's would declare martial law.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- a) That's extreme pessimism.
- b) He has been repeatedly openly and directly hostile to critics in this fashion.
- c) I wasn't being serious you yogurt. It's really nice not being able to be a human being around you /sarcasm (so you actually get that's sarcasm). -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, you ayran :D :D :D (tasty salted Turkish yogurt drink
).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, not again! Drinking that is like having a party in my mouth where everyone is getting sick! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, you ayran :D :D :D (tasty salted Turkish yogurt drink
- That's extreme paranoia on par with the wingnuts claiming that Obama's gonna declare martial law or moonbats having claimed, that Dubya's would declare martial law.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Given Trumps pettiness and hatred towards any sort of criticism (and the first amendment itself) we'd likely all be in jail. Just a little slower than personalities like John Oliver and without the twitter mocking of our loved ones. Then we can watch everything go to shit while the private prison contractors starve us and withhold medical care. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- How will a Trump presidency change RW? Will there be an explosion of cover articles dissecting the Authoritarian poster boy's administration or will it continue to concentrate on the latest MRA vlogger and what Andy said on CP? Never mind, I just answered my own question. Leuders (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This bullshit is amazing. You guys are like theists conjuring ontological BS to defend a God which just doesn't want to exist. You're talking about abstract "negative votes" and such to avoid the simple fact that *everyone and their dog hates Donald Trump.* There's just no possible way he can win, regardless of who he runs against. Feel free to concoct a page long wall of text to explain how democrat voters who are "tired of political correctness" will ally with Conservative Mexicans and poor whites to enact Voter ID laws that only target Hillary supporters and finally summon aliens to come and vote Trump in. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm glad you have enough faith in humanity to do the right thing in the end, but it's still uphill. After you're proven correct, maybe we won't need Superdelegates. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 18:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Imzy
I got 5 invites to Imzy. What do I do with them? ClickerClock (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- So ... this is another social network?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
"Ghost" Spotted at EDM festival
A "Ghost" was seen in a photograph of the Good Life Festival. Hereis the article. Feel free to tear it apart/Occam's Razor the crap out of it. TGW 20:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- One of the commenters says that the ghost shape reminds them of the ghost shape used in a ghost-adding app. Not sure if true, but hell. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Just the existence of so many Add-A-Ghost apps is Occam enough. Leuders (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Should we remember Victory Day?
Most Westerners, Americans included, don't celebrate defeating the Nazis but it is of immense importance in Eastern Europe, especially in Russia. Our wiki doesn't mention it either so I was curious what you all thought about this holiday. I know that Putin has turned made this holiday more militaristic but it seems odd to mark Cinco de Mayo and not Victory Day.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 21:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- America's war was primarily with Japan. Hence they celebrate Victory Day (to the extent that they celebrate it all) on VJ Day in August rather than VE Day in May. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- So why doesn't the UK celebrate Victory Day?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 21:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Same reason the US largely doesn't celebrate it any more: it's increasingly irrelevant. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good points. As a kid VE Day, D-Day, VJ Day, and Dec. 7 were marked almost annually in the US in between Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Armistice Day. It died out sometime in the 1980s with that generation. Hell, Armistice Day has been changed to "Veterans Day" cause the US Congress feared it was becoming a pacifist holiday. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 00:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weaseloid got it tho; VJ Day was the end of the war for America, but by the 1980s Americans celebrating nuking 80,000 Japs started to be overshadowed by the worldwide commemorations of the victims of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, so it quietly was forgotten. 01:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Same reason the US largely doesn't celebrate it any more: it's increasingly irrelevant. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- Only some states celebrate VJ day. Maybe RI, and, umm, I don't know where else.
- But why have only one victory day? Why not for every war? We could have like 50 holidays...CorruptUser (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hence why they're generally covered by generic ones like Remembrance Day, Memorial Day or Veterans Day. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hence why they're generally covered by generic ones like Remembrance Day, Memorial Day or Veterans Day. Weaseloid
- So why doesn't the UK celebrate Victory Day?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 21:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
From what I have experienced, there isn't any major celebration for either Victory day in the U.S. There might be minor celebrations in some towns and cities, but I haven't looked into it so I wouldn't know. Mostly they are both celebrated by the history channel, possibly the latter one more so, but only because it is also the complete end of the war. Though I haven't watched the history channel in at least five years due to the *ahem* downturn in programming, so who knows what it does now?Teurastaja (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- The people whose surrender we'd be cheering over would be mostly the Italians, Germans, and Japanese. In the USA those are some of our best friends in terms of international relations; we even provide most of Japan's military defense capabilities. There is no real reason here to celebrate their downfall, and many reasons not to. Russia doesn't have those issues with the victory. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Here's how VJ Day is celebrated today. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not just in eastern Europe. VE Day is a public holiday in France, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- VE Day is not a public holiday here in the Netherlands. Liberation Day (5 May) is a public holiday once in every five years (2010, 2015 etc), although this year 5 May coincided with Ascension Day which is a public holiday every year.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not just in eastern Europe. VE Day is a public holiday in France, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Here's how VJ Day is celebrated today. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
ahem. Template:Holydaze/0509 Schtroumpf (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whut? Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 12:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Weed in 2016 (US Thread)
So from my best research, it looks like full cannabis legalization will be on the ballot in 2 (or 3) states: Maine, Nevada, and probably California too. Medical cannabis will be on the ballot in Florida as well. How do you think the states will vote? How does this change things going forward? I think Nevada will legalize it most likely, and I'm not sure about Maine. I think the idiots in Florida will vote no. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- It will be a success in every state. Marijuana would be a big revenue source for Big Tobacco.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 23:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please explain what you mean? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- These guys need marijuana. It can be used for legitimate medical purposes and would be very popular.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 00:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please explain what you mean? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Medical marijuana was on the ballot here in Florida a couple of years ago, and it failed by a pretty wide margin (58-42). I'd say it's likely to fail again, unfortunately. KevinR1990 (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see all the concern. Colorado's been legal for years and nothing terrible has happened. Well, except for some really bizarre advertising and terrible weed puns. Lots of money for the state too. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also weed commercials are just as bad for "medicinal" marijuana here in CA. Choice items include the "420md.org" billboards featuring large breasted porno-esque nurses, and "flowkana" which is "Canabis, grown the natural way" apprently.'Legionwhat do you want from me 18:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I guess there needs to be warning labels - Beware: do not pun while high. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Here in CA it will probably be legal, as everyone in the urban areas will probably vote for it, and people in the hick areas can be convinced if they are told how much money they could probably make growing it.'Legionwhat do you want from me 07:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Big Tobacco is, quite sensibly, staying far, far away from cannabis. You see, Big Tobacco is indisputably engaged in interstate commerce; since cannabis is still illegal under federal law, getting involved would paint a huge bullseye on them for any federal prosecutor who cared to take a shot. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It's likely to pass here in California. It's already effectively legal for recreational use, as medical cannabis cards are really easy to get. Counties and cities will probably still be able to ban sales of the Devil's lettuce if they want. A city near me sued all the way up to the state Supreme Court to keep their dispensary ban. Of course you can still buy booze on just about every street block. In longer-term, it's pretty obvious by now that it's just a matter of time before things are changed at the federal level. No one except the far right has any desire to go to war to try to force prohibition back on the states legalizing it, and we godless millennials support legalization overwhelmingly, which means politicians are already shifting towards supporting it to try to get our votes. --Ymir (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Can people stop the whole "Clinton = centrist" bullshit
- 538: Clinton is liberal. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
- GovTrack: Clinton is liberal. http://imgur.com/a/Y0NEm
- DW-NOMINATE: Clinton is liberal. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate
Clinton and Sanders don't always vote the same ways -- though they do 93% of the time, including on big issues http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html -- but that does not mean that she is centrist or even center-right in US politics -- unless you're willing to claim that 90% of politicians are centrist or rightist. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh pundit measurements.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 23:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- These measurements are all relative within a party. Blair was seen as significantly to the right of most of the parliamentary Labour party and it arguably worked to his advantage in 97 and 01. I'd be far more concerned about Clinton's chances if she was perceived as "liberal" as the Democrats in general. Robledo (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- No offense, Fuzzy, but ideology isn't quantifiable. The capital punishment, war, welfare, worker rights, reproductive rights, et al. are moral issues. I, personally, don't mind balanced budgets but my support for a stronger welfare state wouldn't make me conservative. I also hate offshoring jobs but my support for uplifting the global poor with free trade wouldn't make me a protectionist. I don't expect politicians to know every consequence to a certain policy but they should support something because they believe it is right; if Sanders had a think tank behind him I am sure that NYDN interview wouldn't have been as bad but I would still expect him to support breaking up banks and enacting universal healthcare because he believes they are the right policies.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- If HRC is elected, what this means to me is that the urgently needed solutions to the problems of inequality, decent lives for people outside the professional class, and replacing 'disruption' and 'agility' with stability will be postponed for at least four years. This transcends ideology; I'm not much of a liberal myself, but I also see it as a problem. Sanders gets it, and Trump at least sometimes acts as if he recognizes the problem. Hillary does not strike me as getting it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- they should support something because they believe it is right
- No, they support something because they believe it is the line of bullshit people want to hear. That is where there is no difference between Hillary & Trump. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- If HRC is elected, what this means to me is that the urgently needed solutions to the problems of inequality, decent lives for people outside the professional class, and replacing 'disruption' and 'agility' with stability will be postponed for at least four years. This transcends ideology; I'm not much of a liberal myself, but I also see it as a problem. Sanders gets it, and Trump at least sometimes acts as if he recognizes the problem. Hillary does not strike me as getting it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- No offense, Fuzzy, but ideology isn't quantifiable. The capital punishment, war, welfare, worker rights, reproductive rights, et al. are moral issues. I, personally, don't mind balanced budgets but my support for a stronger welfare state wouldn't make me conservative. I also hate offshoring jobs but my support for uplifting the global poor with free trade wouldn't make me a protectionist. I don't expect politicians to know every consequence to a certain policy but they should support something because they believe it is right; if Sanders had a think tank behind him I am sure that NYDN interview wouldn't have been as bad but I would still expect him to support breaking up banks and enacting universal healthcare because he believes they are the right policies.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- These measurements are all relative within a party. Blair was seen as significantly to the right of most of the parliamentary Labour party and it arguably worked to his advantage in 97 and 01. I'd be far more concerned about Clinton's chances if she was perceived as "liberal" as the Democrats in general. Robledo (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Clinton is clearly a leftist. *cough* see image to the left *cough*--JorisEnter (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm weird, but I don't buy that Jeb! and Hillary are that far apart. AyzmoCheers 13:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am going to put the 2012 political compass for comparison. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 14:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
If the vast majority of people fall on one side of your left-right spectrum, your spectrum needs recalibration. Most people in the US are to Obama's right. That makes him left wing. StickySock (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Political Compass tries to be nation-neutral; recalibrating it to fit the current US political spectrum would be contrary to what the PS tries to accomplish.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Then I'm calling bullshit on it considering that the vast majority of the world is NOT Western and thinks that homosexuals should be shot on sight, women belong in the kitchen or the bedroom, believes atheism should be a death sentence, and a whole host of things that would make all but the most extreme evangelical look like MLK. StickySock (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Unless a political gradient includes "exterminate all outsiders" and "panhuman hegemonic hivemind" as options, it doesn't count FuzzyCatPotato of the Rude Embryos (talk/stalk) 03:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Clinton is totally left wing. Sure, she is a total hawk and would “obliterate” Iran (children, old people, everyone included) if the leadership were to nuclear-strike at Israel, as she said, when she were president. That's how left wingers, generally, sound like, don't they? Make war, not peace or what was that again? She's an admirer of Henry Kissinger, who had made similar hawkish statements, in a diffetent era, and who was of course idolized by the Left counterculture. Clinton is so progressive, she was even ahead of Occupy Wall Street! While the others of Occupy still worked on their tents outside, Clinton was already inside, occupying the beds of Goldman Sachs and similar institutes. Clinton was against gay marriage, until fairly recently. To some misguided people this may not sound very leftist, but all those people need to keep in mind, she hasn't tweeted at #GanerGate, therefore she must be left wing — here in Bizarro Universe. ~ Aneris ✻ 04:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- The average American is only barely in favor of gay marriage. Most Americans hate the OWS movement, or at least their members. And the average American thinks more highly of North Korea than of Iran. Just because she's to the right of the echochambers you hang around doesn't mean she is right wing. CorruptUser (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't stated she was right wing, the motion was whether she's left or centrist (whatever that means). She's a right-side US Democrat, which is usually the case in two party systems (the right wing counterpart will be to their left side, usually). But Americans use “Democrat” synonymously with left, making it meaningless in an international context. Here, it's also used arbitrarily: people that are disliked are usually called reactionary and right wing, regardless of their views. New Atheists, for example, count as right wing Neo-Cons around here, even when the movement has been open and supportive of everything from pro-choice to LGBT. So, by your own standards, which are known to be upside down backwards, Clinton would be a hardcore reactionary who outruns Sam Harris from the right. But I'm not saying this, it's only a reminder that you need to keep your story consistent. ~ Aneris ✻ 12:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Look who's back.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't stated she was right wing, the motion was whether she's left or centrist (whatever that means). She's a right-side US Democrat, which is usually the case in two party systems (the right wing counterpart will be to their left side, usually). But Americans use “Democrat” synonymously with left, making it meaningless in an international context. Here, it's also used arbitrarily: people that are disliked are usually called reactionary and right wing, regardless of their views. New Atheists, for example, count as right wing Neo-Cons around here, even when the movement has been open and supportive of everything from pro-choice to LGBT. So, by your own standards, which are known to be upside down backwards, Clinton would be a hardcore reactionary who outruns Sam Harris from the right. But I'm not saying this, it's only a reminder that you need to keep your story consistent. ~ Aneris ✻ 12:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- The average American is only barely in favor of gay marriage. Most Americans hate the OWS movement, or at least their members. And the average American thinks more highly of North Korea than of Iran. Just because she's to the right of the echochambers you hang around doesn't mean she is right wing. CorruptUser (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Clinton is totally left wing. Sure, she is a total hawk and would “obliterate” Iran (children, old people, everyone included) if the leadership were to nuclear-strike at Israel, as she said, when she were president. That's how left wingers, generally, sound like, don't they? Make war, not peace or what was that again? She's an admirer of Henry Kissinger, who had made similar hawkish statements, in a diffetent era, and who was of course idolized by the Left counterculture. Clinton is so progressive, she was even ahead of Occupy Wall Street! While the others of Occupy still worked on their tents outside, Clinton was already inside, occupying the beds of Goldman Sachs and similar institutes. Clinton was against gay marriage, until fairly recently. To some misguided people this may not sound very leftist, but all those people need to keep in mind, she hasn't tweeted at #GanerGate, therefore she must be left wing — here in Bizarro Universe. ~ Aneris ✻ 04:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Unless a political gradient includes "exterminate all outsiders" and "panhuman hegemonic hivemind" as options, it doesn't count FuzzyCatPotato of the Rude Embryos (talk/stalk) 03:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Then I'm calling bullshit on it considering that the vast majority of the world is NOT Western and thinks that homosexuals should be shot on sight, women belong in the kitchen or the bedroom, believes atheism should be a death sentence, and a whole host of things that would make all but the most extreme evangelical look like MLK. StickySock (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll say it again: if Clinton is a conservative Democrat, then the vast majority of Dems are apparently conservative relative to their own party. An absurdity. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would call the entire Democratic party center-right but the problem, it seems, is that the political spectrum is useless. So let's establish what Clinton is a neoliberal and, arguably, a neocon. Everyone has convictions and they are held accountable for those convictions in a democracy; Clinton has no convictions and people get upset that it doesn't appear she can be held accountable.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why would you say that Clinton is unnaccountable? And, for reference, who should be considered 'accountable'? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Stellaris.
Well i picked up the new paradox grand strategy Stellaris last night, and subsequently played it for 24 4 hours. I was wondering if any of you other nerds rationalwikians had the game, if a large enough group does, i suppose we might be able to start a multiplayer game. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 13:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have Stellaris, how good is it? I have Europa Euniversallis IV from Paradox, and Sins of a Solar Empire:Rebellion for space strategy. I have a ton of mods for Sins, especially Star Wars and Star Trek mods, so I mainly play those. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you could pick 3 mods for Sins, which ones should i look for? I used to play it a lot a few years ago, but never modded. I was honestly just thinking about redownloading it the other day. The Trek mod would be sweet. I hope there would be something even more esoteric, like The Culture (just saying, a Culture mod would be ffing awesome). Petey Plane (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is very good, less micro than europa, i could never get a grasp on europa, but i am loving stellaris. I would put it somewhere in between Europa Universalis and Galactic Civilizations. It has the wonderful depth of Europa Universalis, but much easier to pick up. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 23:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you could pick 3 mods for Sins, which ones should i look for? I used to play it a lot a few years ago, but never modded. I was honestly just thinking about redownloading it the other day. The Trek mod would be sweet. I hope there would be something even more esoteric, like The Culture (just saying, a Culture mod would be ffing awesome). Petey Plane (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The only Paradox thing I have is Anno 1404, which is pretty good. Unfortunately my
laptopnotebook doesn't have a disk-drive of any kind so I can't use the CD-ROM. Bugger.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you can use a machine with a drive to image the disk, you can then transfer the image file onto your notebook and it should work. Or just rebuy it on Steam for 10 USD, although it does have Ubisoft's dumb DRM. --Ymir (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks really, really good, but I probably won't get it. Alas. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd get it, but I'm currently already saving up for 5 games, and I don't want to add anymore to that.'Legionwhat do you want from me 01:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I might save it for when the Summer Sale rolls around. Currently waiting on the opinion of someone I know who loves these things. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh wow. Added it to my wishlist. I'll grab it when it comes on sale. CorruptUser (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I might save it for when the Summer Sale rolls around. Currently waiting on the opinion of someone I know who loves these things. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Upload meme?
I've found a image macro originally from facebook (http://i.imgur.com/9BY458f.jpg) that I want to use in an article, and I can't track down the original author or licensing or anything, can I still upload it to rationalwiki? Threadnaught (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably, but why would you want to? It doesn't look witty or informative. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think it illustrates marijuana woo pretty damn well (I would know, I used to have friends who post this shit) Threadnaught (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's a meme -- it's fine. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- its a meme - it should be killed with fire. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- oi u wut m8 --Ymir (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Dont try to stil mah dank memes m9'Legionwhat do you want from me 06:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- oi u wut m8 --Ymir (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- its a meme - it should be killed with fire. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's a meme -- it's fine. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think it illustrates marijuana woo pretty damn well (I would know, I used to have friends who post this shit) Threadnaught (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is a terrible idea as idjits will promptly try to decorate every article with bad memes - David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- ^This. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Shitty slipper slope argument. There's plenty of memes onwiki already -- yet the floodgates haven't opened. FuzzyCatPotato of the Pugnacious Lunchs (talk/stalk) 17:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- ^This. Wéáśéĺóíď
Question:
During the to 2 years (seriously, 2 fucking years?) this us election circus drags on, do any of your politicians do any actual work? Beyond stirring shit up so 1 half of your country is at the throats of the other half for the whole two years?AMassiveGay (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Answer: No 'Legionwhat do you want from me 08:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nope.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 11:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- What they said. Plus, once it's over they start talking about the next one. It never ends. Dustandshadow13 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also, the republicans in the country have been overwhelming opposed to achieving any sort of progress. On anything. Ever. It's literally an important principle to them. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Implying that they do work outside of the election cycle.Petey Plane (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- You just used the words "work" and "cycle" in a single phrase. It's difficult not to - CARNOT ENGINES! THERMODYNAMICS! ENTROPY! WAAAAAAGH!--JorisEnter (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Implying that they do work outside of the election cycle.Petey Plane (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Answering otherwise is typical antipolitician cynicism. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Viktor Schauberger
So yesterday I was at a small seminar sort of deal for class (college). It was supposed to be about the Flint water crisis, but the speaker spoke more about different forms of plumbing. He dedicated a pretty decent amount of the roughly hour and a half he was speaking to Viktor Schauberger. Apparently, Schauberger did some amazing experiments that either defied the laws of physics as they are known or simply more ingenious than what mainstream scientists were capable of. The most important of these was a machine that utilized unknown and/or little known properties of water to create vast amounts of power. A perpetual motion machine. The speaker put in such a way that it seemed he knew very well why people would be skeptical but it was worth looking into. As such, I believe that an article about Viktor Schauberger would be missional due to his crankery. However, I have neither the time nor the will to make an article about him. If somebody else would like to look into the matter and create a page, well that would be just dandy. Also, according to what might be the official website dedicated to Schauberger, he made flying saucers for the Nazis, albeit against his will.Teurastaja (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- See this.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Deranged MichaeldSuarez (JuniusThaddeus) socking and impersonating RW users, Rome Viharo's page
MichaeldSuarez (JuniusThaddeus) was banned a while back on this site for troublemaking, and he's just been blocked on another account - Raider Fan. He's a sysop at Encylopedia Dramatica. Although that site is known to not be factual and satrical (it exaggerates or makes stuff up for humor), MichaeldSuarez uses the site to slander and defame people. He will often impersonate people on Rationalwiki, or other forums, type inappropriate things on sockpuppets, and then go back to Encylopedia Dramatica to "document" it i.e. blame innocent people for these statements he has posted. Raider Fan his most recent sockpuppet is someone else's name on ED he has chosen to use to impersonate; I noticed he's behind a tun of accounts on Rome Viharos page, because now on ED he's trying to pin those accounts onto someone else. That's what this guy does he stirs stuff up through his sockpuppet impersonator tactic.
MichaeldSuarez is behind all the following socks on Rome Viharo:
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Rome_Viharo&offset=&limit=500&action=history
Goblin Face Sciborg S Patel, J Donnis plays guitar, Skeptico forum is gay, but that's entirely acceptable and I in no way oppose their sexual preferences, Sciborg S Patel, Redpenofdoom, OC68 Stevenson Sumo Internetperson, Iantresman, Jon Donnis Goblin Face, and others.DougWellerisalunatic (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)