RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive32

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 January 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

The Facebook WIGO[edit]

What would you say if you found the same article quoted at Metapedia but instead the commentary said something like "(((Mark Zuckerberg))) collaborates with (((Benjamin Netanyahu))) to silence criticism of Israel"? What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I likely wouldn't believe it at all unless they had reputable sources being cited. I'm not actually familiar enough with the Intercept to know if they are generally considered to be credible or not, so I'm not sure whether I buy this at the moment. I would believe it in general, simply because internet companies tend to be completely spineless about this sort of thing in general like when Google folded to China. Arawn Emrys (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Nice Israel apologism, LH. Greenwald runs it with several other ex-Guardian writers. The Intercept is owned by Pierre Omidyar, the owner of PayPal and the one who blocked finds for Wikileaks when Manning released those files. So they are fairly mainstream.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, in retrospect, wikileaks is looking increasingly insane, and that act is looking increasingly reasonable as a result. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
In 2013 it was an act spawned to appeal to power. If it happened today then it wouldn't have been as problematic. Regardless, my point is that Greenwald isn't saying anything controversial because he appeals to power.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Greenwald's positions are mainstream in Gaza, not in the US.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 17:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Protests erupt in Charlotte, North Carolina after police officers kill a man they mistook as their suspect.[edit]

Just suggesting minor corrections, don't want to annoy whoever named it.

First off, I haven't seen any claims or evidence that North Carolina police officers shot and killed this man simply because they mistook him for a suspect. Even the source that this entry links to seems to make no claim that mistaking the man for a suspect had any part in his killing. It seems irrelevant, even if not factually wrong.

But maybe I'm wrong, I clicked this link because I'm completely ignorant on the matter, and was looking for facts. In that case, another source with more/better information might be more suiting.

Second, according to police officers, the man was shot because he was armed. I have not seen any clarification on whether this means he simply had a gun on him, or he was seriously presenting a deadly threat to officers at the time, but it may be worth noting the officer's claim that the man "was armed" in the title.

Trying to not sound like an alt-right NRA member

Bad @ splleing... (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a reflection on the state of police-black relations in America: things are so bad that even when an bad guy gets capped by the cops, the black people still riot. Sorry state of affairs that needs to be fixed through policy implementation. PBfreespace (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I think even guilty people have a right to a fair trial. And a right to not be shot by police in the street. I am not the Ombud's man 23:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a great plan, but who's going to put the bell on that cat? CorruptUser (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Bell? Cat? Am I stupid or are you using obscure idioms? I am not the Ombud's man 23:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Aesop's fable. A group of mice have a meeting to try and decide what to do about the cat. A young mouse says "The problem is the cat is so stealthy! If that cat had a bell around its neck, we'd be safe forever!" Most of the mice cheer at the brilliance of this idea, until an old mouse says "that's great and all, but who is to bell the cat?"
It's a great idea, having the police bring in every suspect and even those that are dangers to the public be brought before a jury instead of the police officer becoming Judge Dredd, but how do you realistically expect to do that? The police aren't paid too well to begin with, and if you require them to bring in virtually everyone and risk their lives even more, well, it's probably not going to happen. My suggestion has always been a simple "no shots" bonus for the police that they lose if they ever fire their gun. Nothing so big that they wouldn't shoot when it actually is necessary, but enough so that killing a person doesn't mean suspended with pay for 2 weeks, aka "paid vacation". CorruptUser (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Guns are of course the elephant in the room here. But several shootings in the past have happened against unarmed people. And I for one think that fleeing perpetrators should be chased after, not shot. Unless there is immediate risk to the life of either the officer in question or others, shooting should not be considered. Only if immediate risk cannot be dispatched off by any other means should shooting be an option. And while I like your pay idea, the problem is that underpaid cops are the most likely source of corruption there is. I have been to countries where cops make less than teachers or small merchants. The results are not pretty. I am not the Ombud's man 23:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The NBC article opens by saying "Hundreds of protesters demonstrated in Charlotte, N.C., overnight after police confirmed they had shot and killed a man while they were seeking a different person" and finishes with "Police said in a statement that officers searching for a suspect with an outstanding warrant about 4 p.m. ET when they saw a man exit his vehicle "armed with a firearm." Maybe I am jumping to conclusions but I am giving the benefit of the doubt.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand how encountering a new problem while looking to solve a current problem automatically means that officers conflated both problems. Now to be clear, I'm not saying they didnt, merely that I don't see enough factual evidence to support that assertion. This is assuming of course, that the police's claim of the man being an immediate danger is even true obviously. Bad @ splleing... (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the text. Ironically, my assumption likely gave the cops more good faith.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Palmer Luckey, Oculus founder apologizes... sort of[edit]


"I am deeply sorry that my actions are negatively impacting the perception of Oculus and its partners.The recent news stories about me do not accurately represent my views."

He then says "I contributed $10,000 to Nimble America because I thought the organization had fresh ideas on how to communicate with young voters through the use of several billboards."

For me, apology not granted. He might not support Trump, but he donated to an organization of assholes. "Fresh ideas", lol. LEFTYGREENMARIO 02:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The author of the Daily Beast article also called this nonpology out as lies and bullshit - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo[edit]

So the government announced the operation to retake the city today, and an intense aerial bombardment makes sense in order to demoralize and soften up the enemy before the ground assault. I wouldn't be surprised if the bombardment lasts many weeks, as the longer the army bombards, the less casualties they're going to have. This battle may determine the outcome of the western side of the war, militarily and politically. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt the US will allow them to win. They already have illegal bases in Syria thanks to the YPG and they have convinced Turkey to invade with ground troops. I don't think they would outright bomb Assad's troops in Aleppo but they, with the Aussies and Brits, already bombed them in Deir ez-Zor; they could justify this as another "accident" since Obama has already agreed to bomb Fatah al-Sham using the AUMF from 2001.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
A note on civilians, many of them aren't allowed to leave and many of them likely don't want to. I think it is highly likely that Assad will see nothing wrong with carpet bombing the city so expect a high amount of dead civilians.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The one advantage of ISIS having exterminated so many innocents beforehand is that you don't have to worry so much about innocents being collateral. If it's the only feasible way to take that city, shikata ga nai. CorruptUser (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
And just like GayJay and the rest of the media, you apparently don't know that Daesh isn't even in Aleppo.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you are correct; they are a distant 5 miles away from the city. Forgive me if I've had a bit of fatigue when it comes to Syria, where the least reprehensible group, the PKK, is still a terrorist organization. CorruptUser (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if might snark pissed you off. Ultimately, nothing good can come from this war; I don't believe any faction cares about anyone but their own.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Nah, not pissed off. And I'm certain that most of those factions don't even care about their own. Assad was massacring civilians before the war started (and I do sympathize with his current supporters; if it's a choice between Stalin and Pol Pot you choose Stalin), the biggest other groups are a mixture of Islamic Front, Al Qaeda, and ISIS who all believe it's ok to kill innocent muslims if they are between you and your goals, and really the only major group left are the Kurds. Strange that you don't see much news about Christian or Druze groups. Are they all backing Assad? The Druze aren't known for rebellion, as far as I know. CorruptUser (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There are three ethnic factions besides the Kurds from what I have read: the Druze support Assad because the Islamosts which dominate the rebels want the dead but the no longer fight outside of their territory in the South, the Christians are among the Shia who fight in the national militia, and the Turkmen support the mercenaries and Islamists who make up the FSA.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The Turkmen are in the northwest IIRC, and only made the news when they killed that Russian pilot. I think they mostly make up proxy militias for Turkey, and of course the FSA which is likely also a quasi-proxy for Turkey, kind of. Not too sure if they are involved with the Islamists. Though in all honesty, I'm not even sure if the FSA isn't just yet another Islamist group anyway... CorruptUser (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The Turkmen are in Northern Syria. The FSA used to have Shia and a few Druze militias along with leftists and secularists but they have since been hollowed out by Islamists, at least in the North. The FSA branch in the South has, AFAIK, resisted a full fledge alliance with Fatah al-Sham but they aren't tolerant of the Druze; currently they are trying to take a Druze town from Assad.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Allow my expertise to come in. The Druze militias themselves stick to the south, but there are prominent Druze commanders who are Syrian nationalists that fight all over the country. The most prominent example is Issam Zahreddine, who fought ISIS at Hasakah and is currently leading the Syrian Army against ISIS in the besieged city Deir Ezzor, far to the east. Obama agreed to fight Jabhat Fateh al-Sham according to the ceasefire agreement, but he has still refused to do so since the ceasefire didn't really last (massive hour-long airstrike against Syrian Army anyone?). Turkmen are mostly concentrated in the northwest, fighting either in FSA, Islamic brigades, or in the Turkish proxy Sultan Murad Brigade. However, there are a good deal of Turkmen fighting alongside their Kurdish and Arab brothers in the Syrian Democratic Forces. Many of the commanders in SDF's last offensive were Turkmen. Also, it goes without saying that there are some Turkmen scoundrels who joined ISIS and fight with them even today.

I hope that clears some things up for you. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Marijuana cigarette shooting[edit]

Damn it! I looked this one up right before posting it and didn't find anything problematic on it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

What did you look it up on? I couldn't find any mainstream sources reporting on it but I guess some may have picked it up without realising. I was more shocked by the breastfeeding shooting (mentioned & linked within the marijuana story) but it was pretty easy to confirm this as fake with Snopes etc. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I just looked up the title and I didn't see anything debunking it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
That's why we should always mention the source in WIGO entries. I am not the Ombud's man 19:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

9/11 Lawsuit Bill Passed[edit]

Now that the brave Congress has overridden the president's misguided veto, maybe the families of the 9/11 victims can finally get justice from the true perpetrator of 9/11: Saudi Arabia. PBfreespace (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to the media spectacle trials that achieve nothing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
What I look forward to the most is a souring of relations between Saudi Arabia and America, which will have positive effects in the Syrian War, and possibly the Yemeni war as well. Unfortunately, a lot of the weapons shipments have already been finalized, so there will still be much carnage. But hopefully the Yemeni and Syrian governments will be able to make progress if US-Saudi support subsides. PBfreespace (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you but for different reasons. I think Saudi Arabia and the US having worse relations could prove a very good thing. Wahhabism could end up weakened and oil prices could rise. What's not to like? I am not the Ombud's man 21:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, who'd be the realistic alternative to the 2nd worst (they've been the worst, but DAESH outdid their salafi buddies) Islamist regime of the Middle East?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 22:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
US-Saudi relations are not souring; when Bernie Sanders registered as a Democrat and filed papers to run for president, Saudi Arabia had the forth largest military budget on the planet. Today they are number three. Thst's how fast events change. Saudi Arabia is key and instrumental to keeping Putin in check.nobs 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@PBf You know who else wanted a souring of US-Saudi relations? Osama. That was what he was trying to accomplish with 9/11.
But the reason the bill is a bad idea, is that Saudi Arabia isn't the only one with clandestine operations. In specific, another, larger country also does clandestine operations, and this bill opens the floodgates for everyone else to sue the US...
@Kigel 3rd. Saudi Arabia is not worse than the Iranians. CorruptUser (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Women in Iran have it better than in Saudi Arabia (that's not hanging the bar really high, I know) and (some) religious minorities also have it better there (again not hanging the bar really high). But yes, both are Islamist shitholes.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 00:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 00:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@CU Yes, Saudi Arabia is far worse than Iran. Women are treated like shit, immigrants are treated like shit, there are sex slaves, they don't even pretend to care about democracy, they don't even pretend to care about committing war crimes in Yemen, they fund Wahhabism around the world, and everyone is persecuted. Also, who the fuck cares if OBL wanted to sour US-Saudi relations, that has nothing to do with whether we should prop up that anachronistic regime. There is only one ideal way that shitstain should end.
Anyways, the only problem I have with the bill is that the Senate inserted an amentment, the Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations, which allows the secretary of state to simply “certify” that the U.S. is “engaged in good-faith discussions with the foreign-state defendant concerning the resolution of claims against the foreign state.”--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a few rogue elements in the Saudi family or government sent money or were sympathetic to bin Laden, But the idea 9/11 was an operation sanctioned by the government is ludicrious.nobs 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible that Obama knew his veto would be overruled and actually wanted the law to pass but thought a veto would be a low risk move with foreign policy benefits and few real costs (he is at the tail end of his second term anyway) I am not the Ombud's man 16:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not always 7th dimensional chess. He could have thought the law was a bad idea(and it really is) and expressed that through one of the constitutional powers specifically enumerated to the president. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
What was the pre-veto vote? I am not the Ombud's man 16:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Unrecorded voice votes in both chambers. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
That does not usually indicate a narrow majority, right? I am not the Ombud's man 16:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You are correct. A voice vote may be challenged by any member of the assembly and forced to a counted vote. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
So Obama must have at least considered it possible his veto would be overridden. I am not the Ombud's man 18:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what is wrong with this bill, if you don't sponosor terrorism then you won't lose in court.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a saying, "in court and in war only our god lord knows what the results will be". Of course goat knows and so does Christopher Hitchens, so there you go. But courts are unpredictable things. You know that innocent people get thrown in jail and guilty people walk off scot free all the time. It's not a common occurrence, but too common to wage diplomacy on. Unless of course you want the diplomatic relations with a certain place to tank. And I frankly want US-Saudi relations to tank. I am not the Ombud's man 22:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with this bill is that sovereign immunity is a foundational principle of international law, and the U.S. Congress has unilaterally decided to abrogate it. (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@LH I the guilty hey off then no big deal, I hate it but it happens; that amendment I mentioned will stop lawsuits in the name of "diplomacy". If an innocent party gets in trouble then there is a problem but this bill doesn't make that any more than was already possible especially since classified state sponsors of terrorism could get sued; look at the Lockerby attack, it was probably the Iranians but Gaddafi got screwed for it.
@BoN Soveriegn immunity is invoked far too much in order to prevent state's from being held accountable.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
To be quite clear, guilty people walking free is far more tolerable than innocent people hanging. That's one of several reasons to virulently oppose the death penalty. I am not the Ombud's man 21:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A bi-partisan consensus in Congress has to be responsive to voters by being sympathetic to families, Obama has to demonstrate to the government of Saudi Arabua this is not the official policy of the Executive branch. The courts will sort out the facts, and of coarse the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can afford the best lawyers in America. Ultimately, a few low level bureaucrats and private Saudi citizens may be found culpable of violating US civil law and/or international standards of justice, at which time they may face Saudi-shariah law if they haven't already (meaning they'd be given time to repent if they sinned and are good Muslims). I'm sure the government of Saudi Arabia is just as interested to find out who in their government is trying to subvert Saudi foreign policy.
And if this doesn't sound plausible, they always got the CIA and Saudi intelligence to to help court investigators establish the facts.
What's interesting, and makes the case for family victims having a rough time at it is, US federal courts have already determined Iran to be a material accessory to 9/11 and awarded big payouts in damages from the government of Iran. But we didn't hear a word about that when Iran's frozen assets were recentl—y returned.nobs 02:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I couldn't take you seriously when you said "international standards of justice". I'm sure you had an intelligent comment after that, as yours usually are, but I'm currently giggling too much at that phrase. CorruptUser (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Noted psychology professor makes public video refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns, and decries SJWs[edit]

Imagine if this guy was your professor. My favorite part is:

"Peterson told the National Post that he decided to make the video and go public with his views after receiving a memo from university HR outlining new mandatory anti-racist and anti-bias training. 'That disturbs me because if someone asked me to take anti-bias training, I think I am agreeing that I am sufficiently racist or biased to need training,' he said in an interview."

So a psychologist is saying they shouldn't have to take anti-bias and anti-racist training, because they are too smart to have bias. Wonderful. --Olmec (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

So this professor disagrees with the actions of the Human Resources department, because he doesn't want to be forced to attend "anti-bias" training. The training seems more problematic to me. What if they say flat earth and round earth are equal, and if you hate flat Earthers you're biased and that's wrong? What if it's creation vs evolution? Religion vs atheism? Liberalism vs conservatism? The idea of having mandatory anti-bias classes is ridiculous. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Anti-bias training does not have to mean that participants should give equal weight to spurious claims. The ability to determine your own biases is a very very valuable skill. It keeps a person from falling into any number of traps in regards to thinking, and prevents tunnel vision. We can't really say the idea of anti-bias training is inherently a bad idea without knowing what was in the training in the first place. --Olmec (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Good post! I am not the Ombud's man 20:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that someone is a psychologist does not mean they are free of idiocy. Mark Yarhouse, Psy.D. is a perfect example of that. Not to mention that older psychologists, just like everyone else, are less open to things that "didn't exist" when they were younger. It is worth noting that this topic is not within his area of study as you don't study "psychology," but an area within psychology for your research/dissertation. Just because he says something doesn't make it important. AyzmoCheers 19:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite. Scientific racism is largely justified by psychologists like Richard Lynn, Chris Brand (no longer working in academia AFIAK because his students told him to fuck off), and the late J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, and Richard Herrnstein. Just because you can administer some tests and write down the results, doesn't mean you're able to appreciate things in their wider context (Richard Herrnstein who co-wrote The Bell Jar was an animal psychologist). Besides a lot of places have psychologists in the arts faculty... prejudiced grumbling Annquin (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea? Do you know what Pro Life is? And did you see Freethought Blogs? There are things that have a good name, with an awful ideology behind them that can mean the opposite. So instead of going by some slogan and criticising the Professor because he's apparently Pro Murder of Cute Kittens, why don't you find out about the ideologies he criticizes and for which reasons? For example, Antiracism is now often a form of identitarian cultural racialism and the opposite of what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr wanted. His approached is seen as failed and as "color blind". ~ Aneris 16:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Rape and the US election[edit]

I feel like it hasn't been brought up much even though it seems that the US has become more conscious about rape. Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump could enter the White House and both have been accused of rape and have settled with women over sexual assault and sexual harassment; I almost never see anyone talk about it outside of the various Trump subreddits. Why and what do you think about the claims (e.g. Juanita Broaddrick, Ivanka Trump, etc)?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

i think its interesting that the idea of innocent until proven guilty goes out the window when its rape and sexual harrassment, or we dont like the accused. If is true, prove it. If you cant, i suspect there is much you can criticise for that is actually provable. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, we aren't a jury so we can think of the individual any we see fit but there are people who don't think about any; these people tend to have their mind made up w/o investigating the claim. I think the reason you see it with sex crimes is because many people want them taken seriously and they know that rape can be very psychologically damaging. Regardless, the reason I brought it up was because I don't remember these kinds of claims against McCain, Obama, or Romney.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Obviously I can't speak for whether there may be unaired allegations around any of those people specifically, but it should be unsurprising that rape claims become more of a common feature of politics & public life in the times we live in than they have in the past, given the scandals that have come to light in recent years about celebrities & politicians on both sides of the Atlantic and the way the public & media has reacted to these scandals. Clearly there has (until fairly recently) been a widespread culture of hushing up sex crimes by powerful people, & the media has often been complicit in this, whereas there's now a much greater emphasis on bringing rapes to public attention & investigation. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, which is why I brought this up since I barely see or hear discussions about these claims anywhere. The only time I have seen Brodderick brought up is on Trump subreddits but I never see Clinton supporters even acknowledge such claims. The same can be said of Ivanka's claim which I would think would be brought up by Clinton supporters but they only ever talk about his finances and how much they fear his presidency.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Ivana Trump changed her story as part of the divorce settlement. (Not to be confused with Ivanka Trump who is her daughter). I don't know much about Juanita Broaddrick, but having glanced through her Wikipedia entry I see she also changed her story. That means these cases can't easily be used as fodder by the opposition nor mainstream media without straying into slander & gossip territory. But they're certainly getting attention on social media & blogs. What I find more notable is how the child rape case involving Trump & Jeffrey Epstein is going completely unreported by mainstream press, reputedly because of Trump's extremely aggressive legal team, notably Mihael Cohen who is also credited with getting Ivana to change her story. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, I guess it is Ivana and not Ivanka but who can tell when Donald wants her too. Anyways, if you are curious about Juanita's story (along with some other allegations) Vox and Buzzfeed covered it more recently. I personally don't find the changes of Ivana's or Juanita's stories to be problematic enough to not believe either. I am somewhat skeptical to the Epstein story, but even if it isn't true, it sickens me that he had a relationship with both Bill Clinton and Trump while it was known he was a child rapists.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Trutherism[edit]

Counting down to the dead in Haiti all being crisis actors. OTOH, why isn't this for clogs? I get so confused. Whoover (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Heard Michael Savage insist that because meteorologists didn't know what path Matthew would take, global warming is a hoax. The stupid, it burns so much. StickySock (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Autism Speaks[edit]

As someone diagnosed with PDD-NOS young and got sufficient intervention to be reasonably functional, and who rather strenuously resists being referred to as anything other than disabled (and strongly prefers avoiding horrific mutilation of basic English grammar "person-first language", because apparently non-humans can have autism spectrum disorders or something), I never did think of Autism Speaks as being so much evil as simply misguided (if rather horribly so at times, no defense of their former anti-vaccination stance from me is forthcoming). I'll freely admit how difficult it is to have a child like myself, and I'm one of the most mildly affected, and I do understand the mentality, if not the corresponding positions, on people looking for a cure to autism; if they ever do find one I'll be in line, since he miswiring in my brain causes me and the people who know me a lot of pain and confusion. Whether or not one considers it a good organization Autism Speaks seems to be the most prominent name out there, so I've always been of the view that working with them would be more productive (c.f. Steven Brill and his take on teacher's unions, even if criticism of unions seems close to a damnable sin here). Accordingly I'm glad this change came about, and perhaps this can be the start of some more good; Bob Wright seems at least reasonably well-meaning, it'll be good if his intentions translate to similarly good work, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Breaking: Mosul operation has begun[edit]

The military operation to liberate the city of Mosul from ISIS has begun. Over 60,000 allied troops, both Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi Army soldiers, have massed on the frontline 20 km from the city limits to begin an assault. There are dozens of towns and villages between the frontline and the city itself, so there will be a series of battles on the outskirts before the main battle for the city begins. US aircraft alongside British and French jets are the main air support for this operation. US artillery has also shelled the city earlier today, so serious US cover fire is likely. The battle for the city is going to take a long time (many months), as ISIS really would prefer not to lose its Iraqi capital of 1 million people. ISIS has spent years building dozens of kilometers of burning oil trenches and machine gun posts, and although it will be easy for allied heavy armor to overcome this, it will mean that the battle will be extremely bloody. The burning oil and tar will also obscure allied aircraft. There is no doubt that the allies will win, as 60K troops plus the best air support there is against just 5K enemy fighters really isn't a fair fight. The political situation will also be interesting to watch play out: I think the Iraqi government will doubtless control the city, but there may be many disputes between the Kurdish government, and Iraq over who should govern which village and where exactly the border should be drawn (here's a handy map of ethnicities around Mosul). I wonder if these disputes will become violent like they have in a couple of other Iraqi towns. Finally, I'm sure some Republicans in America will accuse Obama of starting the offensive now to get people to vote for Hillary Clinton. They can believe that if they want.

I don't pray, but my thoughts and hopes are with the Iraqi Army, Popular Mobilization Units, and Kurdish Peshmerga in this battle. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this update. To the allied forces, I can only say — since I certainly don't believe in prayer — be safe, and let'er rip. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

US air support has already been in full force in the past 24 hours in preparation for the offensive. This is from the Department of Defense's website: "Near Mosul, six strikes engaged two ISIL tactical units and an ISIL media center; damaged two T-walls; suppressed another mortar system; and destroyed an ISIL-held building, five rocket rails, four fighting positions, two supply caches, two vehicles, an anti-air artillery system, a mortar system, and a headquarters building." That's a ridiculous operational tempo, and that's only going to increase over the coming weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if we see 40-50 airstrikes per day. Even a powerful army isn't going to be able to hold up under that kind of air pressure. PB (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Operation has been officially announced by the president of Iraq on live TV. There are a lot of behind enemy lines operations going on in Mosul city right now. Things like ISIS cars being burnt and random assassinations. Also attempts by local civilians to rebel, which are probably going to be crushed. Very good strategy if they want to scare all the ISIS fighters to leave. A corridor is purposefully being left open for ISIS to leave the city and head to Syria, which I personally disagree with. PBfreespace (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the coalition troops hope to attack them in the open? Haven't read up on this. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Both Napoleon and Sun Tzu said never to overtly corner your enemy with no retreat left open to them. They both pointed out that once the enemy knows they are cornered they will fight harder than they could ever do otherwise, and your own men will struggle to match that utter desperation. They recommended leaving a highly vulnerable escape open instead, allowing the enemy to pick himself off (and the enemy troops consider desertion) as he entertains the fevered dream of escape. Basically, when causing a fight-or-flight response in the enemy, leave your enemy room for an unwise flight attempt, or know beforehand that you will face the fight of your life. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of conspiracy theories from the pro-Assad anti-US camp that think the US is trying to cause a surge of ISIS fighters from Mosul to Syria in order to increase pressure on the Syrian government. I don't believe them, but I also don't discount them. If I led this battle, I'd totally besiege it and spend years fighting to retake it regardless of difficulty of the fight. It ensures you kill all the enemy so they don't live to fight another day, and so you won't have to fight for the city again. The Sunnis in Mosul who supported ISIS need to be taught a real lesson, like the Syrian Army is doing in Aleppo. In that city, the civilians have utterly no hope of living if they don't flee to government-held areas. That's what I'd do. PBfreespace (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Things are getting serious. I just saw news footage from Mosul of US aircraft dropping white phosphorus on ISIS positions in broad daylight. Definitely intended as a weapon. Baghdadi reportedly left the city just hours before the main site assault started. ISIS strategy so far is to hold main troops and spam cat bombs, which so far isn't working as all have been destroyed before reaching target. Heavy airstrikes right now on towns on the outskirts of the city. PB (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Are we sure the bombers aren't just tripping the tar and gasoline traps? Also: wholly inappropriate time to joke, but part of my brain is stuck on "ISIS strategy so far is to... spam cat bombs." I know what you meant, but the mental image is too amusing. (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The UN tweeted the following infographic on the ongoing/upcoming humanitarian catastrophy in Mosul. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

My only concerns with the invasion, besides the humanitarian costs, of course, would be the likelihood that the Kurds ethnically cleansing Sunni Arabs villages in order to increase the reach of Greater Kurdistan and whether the largely Shia-dominated central government can settle their political disputes with the Sunnis. The central government's failure to reconcile the Sunni portestsWikipedia led to this conflict in the first place and if they can't get the General Military Council for Iraqi RevolutionariesWikipedia, one of the largest and most successful non-ISIL Sunni Arab militias led by disaffected Ba'athistWikipedia, then they risk continued insurgency throughtout central Iraq.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Owlman
Can you show me an example of purposeful ethnic cleansing of Sunni Arab villages by the Peshmerga?
I'll wait for your response. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything specifically about the Kurds ethnically cleansing Sunni Arabs in Mosul (which is why I said the likelihood concerns me) but human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, have reported ethnically in various parts of Iraq, like the Ninevah.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Since we are talking about genocide, I think a Godwins is appropriate. "Show me evidence that death camps were real during WWII." Germany used to invite foreign journalists into the "work" camps, giving the prisoners an extra bit of bread or a potato, and heavily screen what the journalists saw and what pictures got out. Anything that said there were death camps was just "foreign propaganda". The allies didn't have access to the camps, so they couldn't "prove" anything. All they had was witness testimony, until the war ended.
So too all we have is witness testimony to what the Kurds are doing. We don't have journalists on the ground, because those guys tend to wind up dead. Or worse. We won't know what really happened until all the dust settles, and even then if the genocide is thorough enough we may not know even then.
Once again, I'll state that even if what is alleged the Kurds are doing is true, they are still the least awful side there. The other sides are Assad, ISIS, and Al Qaeda. "Moderate rebels" are just a myth. StickySock (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, we are talking about Iraq and not Syria.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, right. In that case we have the Kurds, Isis, Iranian proxies, and the Iraqi government. Really hate Iran's role in all this; their Quds force spent a decade destabilizing Iraq and intentionally created the civil war. I blame them more for ISIS than anyone else. StickySock (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
That's an imperialist lie coming from an Iran-hater. The Sunnis of Iraq invited ISIS to come over and start a civil war. They captured Fallujah, al-Qa'im, Hawijah, Mosul, Baaj, and Tal Afar all by themselves before Iran had anything to do with it. The war going on in Iraq right now is the Sunnis' fault. They've made their bed, and now they have to lay in it. The few patriot Iraqi Sunnis are actually fighting alongside their comrades to retake Mosul and other places, and the rest are all traitors who should be killed. Applesauce (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Apple Interesting that you think Iran isn't acting imperialistically within Iraq. The Islamic Dawa PartyWikipedia, the ruling party in Iraq, has close ties to Iran while the Badr organizationWikipedia is basically an Iranian proxy. Though the Mahdi Army (now called the "Peace Companies") has received funding from Iran, al-Sadr has opposed Iranian influence and his forces have been attacked by the Iraqi Army due to his opposition to the Dawa Party; despite this, the Shia militias have been implicated in war crimes. Lastly, your statement that ISIL took cities like Mosul, Ramadi, and Fallujah by themselves is a factual incorrect; the Washington Post and BBC interviewed the leaders of the General Military Council of the Iraqi Revolutionaries after they took Fallujah. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote about how Maliki's alienation of Sunnis spawned this violence with the GMCIR (Sunni farmers) and the Naqshbandi Army (disaffected Ba'athists) being the main Sunni groups that were more powerful than ISIL. All of this could've been avoided had Maliki not waged a campaign of vengeance and had respected the Sunni Arabs' constitutional vote for autonomy instead of cracking down on their protests.
@Sticky You are correct but the US single-handedly created a power struggle in Iraq by dismissing their army; most of the poor young men used the Iraqi military to gain employment and were forced to join militias in order to gain political power. Inevitably, after we left, a vacuum appeared which Iran used to create a buffer zone between them and the US and Sunni militias. It also didn't help that Petreaus helped arm the Sunni and Shia militias while we were there. Oh the factions you mentioned, you forgot the Turks who have militias in Iraq w/o any approval from the Iraqi central government; you also forgot the Assyrians who are also fighting to create their own autonomous zoneWikipedia and have been politically against the Kurds expansion in the Nineveh.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Maliki is the saviour of Iraq. He led the fight to end the Sunni terrorist campaign in the "surge" as Americans call it. The country was stable until the Gulf Arab-backed pigs invaded a sovereign country, invited in by the Sunnis along the Tigris and Al-Furat. The Iraqi Sunni traitors invited in Wahhabi foreign terrorists to help them reinstall their former dictatorial power. But the Iraqi people responded to the fatwa and rose up against the foreign-backed terrorists, and began liberating their country! Never again will Iraq be ruled by the terrorists and Saddamists! Applesauce (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone ever claim "Patient Zero" was at fault for AIDS?[edit]

I had heard of "patient zero" before, but this is the first time that I hear he single-handedly brought AIDS to the US. All I ever heard about him is that he did spread it a lot faster farther and wider than would have otherwise happened and he apparently did not change his behavior even when told to. So while this study is fascinating, the way it is sold in the media is strange. Worzelpete (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

To test this question I plugged in a google search omitting results from 2016, the first result(within my filter bubble at least) suggests patient zero brought AIDS to the world, with the only caveat in the article that "If it wasn't him, someone else would have", the second is much more in line with what you're saying. So... a mixture. Both the truth and untruth were out there. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

White vs Black Net Worth (rant)[edit]

Can we please stop citing sources that insist on comparing the medians of household income? It's disingenuous for a variety of reasons, and the "studies" virtually never adjust the data to actually make a useful comparison. To properly compare, you need to adjust for age, gender and marital status at the very least before you can actually determine how much institutional racism there is (though leave in gender if comparing for institutional sexism).

Oh, and if we are going by net worth, Donald Trump is the poorest man in the world, or was in the late 90's, when his net worth was -$900,000,000. CorruptUser (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

BDS news item[edit]

How is it at all contradictory that boycotts are protected speech and the EU as an institution rejects BDS as a movement? I'm confused by that one. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that depends on what the definition of "is" is. I think you can allow something and still have "the state" (using it in the broadest sense) have an opinion on it. For instance, racist talk is (for the most part) allowed in the US yet "the state" (again, used in a very broad sense) is clearly opposed to racism and racist talk. Does that make sense? Worzelpete (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Something To Add Regarding Trump Disavowing the Alt-Right[edit]


He might have disavowed them, but he did defend Bannon and Breitbart.Ryantherebel (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you believe this?[edit]

Can you believe the British parliament? They can't be bothered to pass meaningful bills to curb poverty or reduce carbon emissions, but they do care about stopping Brits from being able to view female ejaculations on their computer screens. They haven't managed to pass successful legislation to improve healthcare or infrastructure, but they do want to make sure you can't see an entire fist being inserted into an anus or vagina. These people are fucking comically ridiculous with their priorities. It's like we're living in the fucking twilight zone. PBfreespace (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? Worzelpete (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It has more to do with increasing the state's surveillance powers than it does with porn.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What's bad about the whites protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline?[edit]

Is someone telling them to please stop having fun, or what's up with that? Worzelpete (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article. They aren't actually participating in the protest so much as they're coming there and treating it like some sort of festival. They're not helping with any of the work while also helping themselves to the camp supplies. And protests aren't supposed to be fun; they're about airing grievances and exposing an injustice. Blitz (Complaints Box) 03:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Describing it as "colonization" seems just a tad over the top and as though it has pointlessly hostile racial undertones towards the white kids, not to mention it's all based on a couple eyewitness accounts and I have serious doubts (though I could be wrong obviously) that it's only "white" kids doing this but in radical-left (or at least these types of rad left) circles they're the group it's most often acceptable to broadly complain about like this so whenever they need to complain about "people" annoying them it's constantly framed as "white people". I've tried to give these identitarian far-left articles (including the ones posted here) an honest shake but to be honest I very much get more than a whiff of "UUUUUUGH WHITE PEOPLE AMIRITE?!" from virtually all of them even if I agree with the actual policy substance and makes honest disagreement impossible without being framed as a bigot (as though their often weird far-left interpretations somehow represents the agenda of most racial minorities, which comes across as a complete ironman and is not my experience as the vast majority of minorities and minority communities I know of in the "real world" are more moderate and are annoyed by these ideologues as well). Sorry for the rant but almost every hardcore, far-left identitarian who consistently talks and writes in the styles of these articles that I've known has, in the past year, become a full-blown tankie who fantasies about mass murdering people in revolutions and constantly drones on and on about "straight white males" and I'm having increased difficulty not thinking of this as a movement with an authoritarian core (or at least a large authoritarian wing). I'm going to stop talking now before I'm further interpreted as an Aneris-styled paranoiac. ClothCoat (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Let me be absolutely clear: A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having. If your protest is "not supposed to be fun", you are doing it wrong. Worzelpete (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Varsity SJW Article[edit]

I wouldn't consider it appropriate for it to be in the WIGOW article; it'd be better to be in WIGOC or WIGOB, seeing as how it's not really news, other than that it's surprising that such an article came from a source such as The Varsity. I mean, comparing political correctness to MLM and McCarthyism with a straight face, and unironically using the term "social justice warrior?" I honestly found myself wondering why it wasn't put in WIGOC as I read it. Converted From Conservatismfrick 23:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're familiar with the case the article is referring to, then the reason why the article adopted the language that it did would make some sort of sense. (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Krashlia
I assumed it was published as part of Prof. Peterson's anti-preferred pronoun shitstorm? Converted From Conservatismfrick 02:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Anything new in the WikiLeaks leak?[edit]

Is there anything new in WikiLeaks' new entry into Cablegate? The big 'reveal' being talked about is how the CIA funded Mujahideen to find the Soviets in Afghanistan, and that they founded al-Qaeda and started causing rebellions in various Muslim countries. This of course was already known since the '70s. The tabloids are reporting mostly on the 'reveal' and all they're saying is "CIA created ISIS", which isn't accurate. So now we've got a bunch of Americans sharing articles believing they prove the government did 9/11, and Malaysians sharing articles believing they prove that every Salafi terrorist ever is actually a paid CIA agent including al-Baghdadi. Naturally, they're clogging the drains so much I can't actually find new and reliable information.-- Forerunner (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

My question is whether or not Assange knew about public knowledge of Operation Cyclone and just wanted to create a manufactroversy, or that he was seriously ignorant of this. Converted From Conservatismfrick 02:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I have been looking but I haven't found anything of substance. I assume this is more of a publicity stunt than anything else.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Between the lack of relevance and conspiracy tone of wikileaks, i'd say they switched sides and now are firmly in the Troll faction. Fuck, it even seems the Russians did really hack the US election.--Benaresh (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump dismissing the CIA "report"[edit]

What is the problem him doing this? Why should anyone believe anonymous sources that only have circumstantial evidence? Also, what is with the "first line of defence" BS? Whenever this agency uses anonymous sources, the US always seems to go to war. If any of this (dis)info was true, why didn't Obama act sooner since none of this "evidence" is new? I mean, the US had no problem getting indictments against Chinese state-sponsored hackers; they also publicly named those hackers. We still haven't established whether the DNC and Podesta hacks were state-sponsored and the FBI has already concluded that if they were, the Russian govt was trying to elect Trump. Are we seriously suggesting that there is a Vast Russian Conspiracy that has power over the FBI and can manipulate the entire nation's election? We are talking about an organization that has rigged elections, assassinated political leaders, supported fascist coups, and trained and armed death squads and terrorists. Besides all of that, I am almost tempted to remove the entry entirely on the blatantly racist, Russophobic statement that Russia is a "long-time nemesis of the USA".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As an observation, if this is truly the narrative that is being pushed, the narrative that there is a grand conspiracy, then all of this site's coverage of cospiracy theories ranging from 9/11 to birtherism will seem like a hypocritical jokes, especially now that everyone seems to be so concerned with "fake news".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is a good read on the possible political ramifications for trump: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-isolates-himself-with-c-i-a-attack
The thing People are mad about isn't about the hacks but the dismissal of of the CIA and the additional Problem of the "possibility" of subterfuge regarding the U.S. Election. If Trump and his Staff said something along the lines "we need clearer evidence" it also would be less of a Problem. I rather go with Intelligence Experts like the CIA than i'd go with Trump tbh. And the Dirty Laundry of the CIA currently has no bearing on that discussion.--Benaresh (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
There aren't any political ramifications to him dismissing the report or ignoring the agency. Trump is the president-elect and can do whatever he wants to that agency. Hell, John Kennedy gets praised for his internal fight with Allen Dulles's CIA yet here is Trump doing his job and everyone is freaking out. This is ludicrous; this kind of manufactured controversy over every little thing the POTUS does is what the Republicans did against Obama for eight years and we ridiculed them for it. The idea that the CIA's dirty laundry is a non-issue is willfully ignorant at best. To be skeptical you have to look at someone's history to establish their intent. Would you trust Andrew Wakefield (if he were still alive, of course) if he told you that penicillin gives you cancer?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This is little more than the same Clinton/media/intelligence community machine that has been manipulating public opinion and polls now for two years, trying to convince us Hillary Clinton is a likeable person. They now are making a closing argument to the jury (the jury being the Electoral College), in true lawyerly fashion, trying to place a reasonable doubt in their minds about Trump. If it fails, it has the added advantage of tainting Trump's legitimacy, like the birther movement or Florida recount. nobs 07:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with you on Florida; there were numerous issues there. I think a better example would be the Ohio recount in '04.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
To this day you can find bitter-enders in both parties who claim Obama was born in Kenya and his birth certificate is a fraud, and Jeb stuffed the ballot box for his brother George. 15 years from now a few die-hards will claim the Trump's election ranks with the Rosenberg case or the Sorge spy ringWikipedia as the one of the most successful KGB operstions in history. nobs 07:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Your argument is just as weak as those you criticise. So the CIA aren't able to identify every hacker everywhere? Are they meant to be omniscient and omnipotent now? Of course we should regard them with skepticism, but claiming that everything emanating from the US government is automatically a lie is a position worthy only of the most extreme conspiracy theorist. Annquin (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Owlman, the Business Insider article you cite already provide reasons why the FBI be reticent to identify the hacks as pro-Trump interference by Russia: the pro-Trump &/or anti-Clinton biases within the bureau. & It doesn't require a Vast Russian Conspiracy controlling them; just enough people with pro-Trump interests willing to ignore who they may inadvertently be siding with. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Annquin This is literally an anonymous source from the CIA. They have openly stated no new evidence, that that evidence is circumstantial, and that they are interpreting that this data to imply that Russia sponsored the hacks. If the report is to be believed, the CIA also state that the RNC was hacked which would imply that the Russians have no preference of who gets hacked rather than trying to help Trump win. And yes, the CIA should identify every hacker because that isn't hard (as can be seen of te arrest of the Chinese hackers). The only "evidence" they have is that the hackers' IP addresses originated in Russia but that doesn't prove that the government had anything to do with it. This agency has had no problem stating that it knows, for certain, that Saddam has WMDs or that Bin Laden had a mountain fortress in Afghanistan; these claims were all false yet they had no problem sharing their fake evidence with the public. Is it not odd that the CIA "waited" until after the election to release their report? Also, I never claimed that "everything emanating from the US government is automatically a lie" so you can shove that up your ass.
@Weaseloid Where do you see Business Insider say that the FBI is pro-Trump, I only see the Democrats are saying that in the link? Regardless, it may be true that there are a significant pro-Trump elements within the FBI but why is this same criteria not put on the CIA? Neocons usually reside throughout it and they overwhelmingly wanted Hillary to win or wanted Trump to lose. I honestly don't see how this kind of conspiracy isn't becoming a narrative which requires us to believe that the FBI is full of some much bias that they are willing to allow the Russians to meddle in our elections and that the Russians have somehow managed to create so many votes in so many states that they stole the election for Trump.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Jesus H Christ. Here is the Business Insider on the widely reported pro-Trump bias within the FBI. Here is when, two months ago, the National Intelligence Director & Department of Homeland Security formally accused the Russian government of hacking & leaking. Here is a Russian diplomat confirming close links with the Trump team last month. Here is a pretty good overview of the issue, from a couple of weeks ago. As it notes, the issue is that we don't know, & perhaps will never know, how much the Russian activities swayed the election result. Re the RNC hack, it doesn't indicate Russia didn't care who won the election: it indicates that they had strategic reasons for wanting intelligence on both parties & that's not the same thing. If the Kremlin has compromising info on Trump or the GOP which it's keeping secret for now, it could be used as leverage to manipulate the Trump administration later. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The BI link builds on previous stories like the Guardian's. In the Guardian's piece, they sensationalize their title based on the agent's comment that the FBI is Trumpland because there are many agents who wanted to vote for Trump. The BI story talks about how many were frustrated with Comey, and his second in command's, perceived failure to indict Hillary Clinton or her families foundation; that may imply bias against Clinton but it doesn't convince they would support Trump. The Bloomberg citation is far more convincing since it shows that whoever runs the FBI Twitter account tweeted about Bill Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich weeks after the files were released; this might not have been so egregious had the same account not praised Fred Trump as a philanthropist. Despite this, this info doesn't indicate that the whole bureau would be willing to commit high treason in order to elect someone who some believed to be incompetent.
The Russian diplomat said he was in contact with allies of Trump in order to figure his views on Russia and even if he had been in contact with the campaign, the would've been nothing wrong with this; the only reason it is a "controversy", according to the NYT article, is because Russia was accused of hacking the Democrats. This same article then states that, "But law enforcement officials said that their investigations found no direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government in the hacking of the Democrats’ computers. They also found no conclusive evidence of financial connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russian financial institutions" showing that nothing abnormal has occurred. The DHC and NID also have no proof that the Russian government had anything to do with the Dem hackings or intended to help elect Trump and they aren't the only intelligence agencies the US has. There is no ambiguity because there is no proof to this new Red Scare. This is not 2000, Clinton lost (and won) multiple states by thousands of votes on her own accord.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I dont get it. You are way to uncritical of Putin. Yes we should be wary of a new Cold War and the ensuing rhetoric, but the future President of the United States should seriously consider the CIA Report. Again there is a big chance that nothing was actually done, but it is believable and possible considering the Crimean and Ukranian Operations Putin had instigated. He may not be an Dictator but as an Autocrat he is more than willing to push his Interests with Cloak and Dagger, which is something he has some expertise in.--Benaresh (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I admit that I have likely edited in poor faith by my opposition still stands. I don't the president-elect has any reason to take any report seriously if that report has no evidence especially one that seeks to undermine him; this is something Obama should've done when the Republicans manufactured controversies about him. I don't think you need to be an autocrat to use cyberattacks, you just need to have an interest in doing it. Putin's interest would've been to prevent Hillary from being elected since she was a hawk against him; it was by mere chance that the polls were wrong and Trump, who is promising detente, won. So why am I against this narrative:

  • It nullifies any and all criticisms the Clinton campaign and of Hilary Clinton herself
  • It prevents any critical self-evaluation of the Democrats, as a whole, which guarantees that they will not change
  • It absolves media of any wrong doing for giving Trump hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free advertising in order to monetize views
  • It disqualifies the necessary and valid conversation Americans have to have over issues of race, sex, and class
  • It distracts Americans from the very real need for electoral reform to prevent further voter discrepancy
  • It continues the fear-mongering about Russia that has propagated throughout the election which brings the US closer to McCarthyism and the world closer to a new cold war
  • It intensifies the idea that Americans can't trust the electoral institutions in place which, ironically, helps the Russians regardless whether or not the Russians tried to delegitimize the election

--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, then! This was not the points i tried to make or imply. I think trump would have won regardless but it is disconcerning that Russia might be implicit in this whole buisness. MY fear is less Hillary might have won and more: "holy Shit! This is crazy and dangerous for everybody involved." I think the CIA and KBG did the most Damage to the World in the Cold War and any sign this could flare up again is a bad sign. So after considering your points some more i have to agree with you: This is overblown as long they can't provide concrete proof and could be used as a way to dismiss deeper lying Issues of Race,Class and Sex.--Benaresh (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
If the Russians were responsible for the DNC/Podesta hacks, then we should be concerned about the growing distrust between the US and Russia, not the supposed Russian aggression; the current debate doesn't seem to reflect how the US's aggressions in the MENA and against Russia has pushed the Russians to try to extend themselves internationally as an act of self-defense; rather, this debate is over Russia's supposed intentions while the hawks push Obama to further sanction or cyber attack their country. Ultimately, this debate is allowing Trump and the alt-right to dictate the debate over class, race, and sex while everyone else is still arguing about an election many Americans didn't care about.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Abolish the DoE?[edit]

This was, admittedly, years ago, but does Perry even know what the department of energy does? Serious question. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

On account that he is still a creationist, probably not. I am actually unsure why he even picked Perry at all since Perry was one of the first Republicans to denounce him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Being a creationist doesn't seem like it would preclude someone from understanding which agency tracks fissile material as its primary function(admittedly it also does things conservatives hate, like plan for a less fossil fuel dependent future). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but it certainly shows that he is anti-science. There are other examples of his anti-science stances like global warming denial. I think that such views trump (no pun intended) anyone knowledge he has of the department itself. Since he doesn't believe that the department needs to move away from fossil fuels, let alone try to regulate oil pipelines or fracking. This would theoretically reduce the Department of Energy to the role of a lapdog to the fossil fuel companies since the department would only give the illusion of regulation while actually allowing fossil fuel companies to do what they want.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Oil companies are probably more regulated by the IRS and Dept. Of Labor; fracking on public land falls under the Dept. of the Interior. The DOE's big job is nuclear waste disposal and oversite of nuke power plants. On the face of it, Perry from on oil state looks like it makes sense, but I am confused a little bit about this one. It must have something to do with fracking and bringing in the Texas people to expand it. nobs 07:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Or... just spitballing... "destroy the government" types rarely, if ever, understand the government functions they oppose. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah my apologizes for overestimating the regulatory power of the DoE. I assumed that Perry was selected because he came from an oil producing state. Occa,'s razor would tell me that Ikanreed is right but selecting Perry, of all people, still confuses me. Ben Carson isn't an advocate of public housing and he knows very little about it, policy-wise, but he was an ally to Trump after dropping out, Perry wasn't.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Carson's appointment is on the Reagan model. It was said Reagan did't know his HUD Secretary, who was black, until after he was introduced to the man at some post-inaugural function. "Mr. President, this is your cabinet secretary, a token black man"." nobs 04:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Right. So why Perry? The man is from a state that Trump already has in the bag, he wasn't a donor nor a supporter, and he isn't associated with a identity group that Trump lost.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The DOE does have some oversite of oil (but as I said, it's spread over a bunch of agenies, like EPA, as well). It's pretty obvious the sanctions on Putin are going to end. The sanctions were, essentially, the US govt leaning on Saudia Arabia to drive the crude price down, which made US frackers collateral damage. But as prices steadily move up the US is well positioned competetitvely. Fracking not only makes the US a net producer (meaning we produce more than we import), the US has a monopoly on fracking as an export technology. The Caspian region and Romania have older, depleted fields that fracking can make productive again.
So Putin won this round, reclaiming the 'near abroad'. But the sanctions can be lifted with a de-escalation of tensions around the Baltics and Poland, and assurances from both Putin and Trump to the people affected. Then Putin and Tillerson can get back to pumping oil and making money. Perry's bringing his donor list with him - the oil men in Texas who elected him. They're not only getting approval and contracts in the US (some on public lands; "fracking on public land" has the same ring to it as "taxpayer funded abortion"), they're expanding globally now that the price has recovered. Perry represents an army of Texas oilmen. nobs 05:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
So what are we living under, a militarized corporatocracy?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Breaking News: Romney onboard with Russian reset. Just in time for the Sunday talk shows about the Tillerson-Putin relationship. This is the dawn of a new era. Say goodbye to Russian sanctions. Say goodbye to Crimea, Ukraine, Taiwan, and the Free Syrian Army. Maybe ISIS, too. Say goodbye to NAFTA and the WTO. Say hello to a second industrial revolution and the growth of domestic manufacturers focused on a domestic markets, worldwide. nobs 06:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh joy, a return to the smog filled skies and poisoned waters so unjustly denied to us. Your focus on manufacturing and production to the exclusion of everything else makes me want to puke, especially when you're apparently just creaming your pants with excitement over Russia steamrolling over smaller countries and taking them over. Taiwan especially is an extremely democratic country with a woman president, a strong social safety net and LGBT rights unknown to a lot of other countries out that way. That's what you want gone? What's wrong with you? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh well. Shit happens. nobs 13:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@nobs I agree that the sanctions on Russia will be lifted and I have no problem with that. The FSA likely never existed as a coherent force but Trump has now begun to call for "safe zones" which are just "no-fly zones" by another name. Crimea will be likely lost in a negotiation to get Russia to end support for the rebels in Ukraine. If Taiwan is invaded by China, it would create a nightmare for realists since we have provided hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons to Taiwan; our response would likely determine the future of the Baltic states like Estonia and NATO.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
We are about to deploy our secret weapon: rearm Japan. If you thought the Nazi's were bad as a warrior culture, the Japanese have been at it longer. Being an island nation, Japan is like the UK of East. Since 1945, Britannia rules the waves of the North & South Atlantic and Mediterranean while the US patrols the Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Persian Gulf. The US doesn't even buy Saudi oil, but we have protected the shipping lanes for our trading partner, Japan. Now China is piggybacking on our goodwill, and the US is paying defense costs for Middle East oil that fuels the booming Chinese economy. The Chinese military owns the factories, and the money US citizens spend at Wal-Mart is being pumped into the Chinese military - a mi!itary that challenges us daily in the Chinese straights.
We need a little help. The US will continue to rule Pacific, but a rebuit Japanese navy (it'll take 20-30 years in toto) can handle the straights (which includes the Spratlys), down to Singapore and the Indian Ocean. Oh yah, and the Persian Gulf, too. You don't wanna fuck with these boys, they're real badasses. And their big brother, the US, is looking over their shoulder. So, it's now time for Japan, all 120 million of 'em, to give us a hand dealing with the North Koreans, China, and the Global jihad. nobs 04:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd feel a tad more comfortable about a rearmed Japan if they were practically run by ultra-nationalists who insist on some form of Nipponese Supremacy and categoraly deny even the most proven of atrocities committed. It'd be better if they just outsourced their defence to the US somehow, kiiinda like they currently do, but paying for it instead of quasi-free. CorruptUser (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
were not practically run CorruptUser (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@nobs you know what. I just had an epiphany. Why you don't give a good god damn about anything but your capitalist fantasy wankfest. It's because you won't be around to see what happens when a planet has a dying ecosystem, a hideously wide gap between the rich and the poor, and an excess of weapons capable of killing us all many times over. Yeah. I get it. "Shit happens." Just not to you. You'll be dead. If I sound angry and filled with spite right now, it's because I am. The American Dream is farther away than ever for people my age and for my kid brother, all because selfish Boomers like you and greedy Xers fucked everything up. Thanks for nothing. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Now now, you're looking at the world mess through yesterday's glasses. The 'change you can believe in', through both Obama & Trump, has arrived. It's a new world of opportunities. Yesterday's rules, yesterday's paradigms and rhetoric, are gone (thank God). You gotta change with the times. It is truelly the dawn of a New Era, not just the end of globalization and all the changes that impacted our lives. Now some say, the rise of nationalism; perhaps. But not the racial/ethnic nationalism of the past that gave the word a bad reputation. Call it multicultural nationalism in a limited political shpere with boundaries. There is no Third World anymore, so we don't have to take a paycut to be competative with people who don't have a pot-to-pee in. Americans need everything, from socks to automobiles, built by American workers. Shit, the rents in these vacant industrial parks are cheap. If I were you my boy, get off your ass, get in on the ground floor, and make some money now in manufacturing and trade. Fuck the service sector mentality we've been stuck with since the 1980s. These opportunities are once in a lifetime, and they've never occurred in my lifetime until now. nobs 06:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Fuck off nobs, I'm not "your boy," I'm a young woman that's watching the world go to shit because babbling old fools like you shat on future generation's stability in the name of reckless, heinously destructive short term growth. If you can't see that that's your own damn problem, not mine. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Fuck you. The Social Security Act of 1936 was passed long before I was born. I never voted for it. I fought against this job killer my whole life, and for –equal opportunity for all and human dignity. Now be a good little Hitler Youth soldier for your godless ideology, find a job other than dope dealing, and make sure my Social Security check is in my mailbox by the 3rd of the month. I got a date with a one-armed bandit at the casino. nobs 13:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Eh, service jobs aren't in themselves worthless, and if you could take direct control of the economy as an Economist-Dictator, you could take the great masses of unemployed people and turn them into more nurses, teachers, and detectives, finally winning the Wars on Crime, Drugs, and Poverty. CorruptUser (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
And Rainbows and gumdrops for everyone! Seriously tough, if it was that simple you didn't need a Dictator for doing it, we would have done it and bickered about other problems we have... --Benaresh (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@CorruptUser, service jobs tend to dissipate in the instant the labor is performed. Manufactuting jobs produce a vendible commodity, which then ripples through economy giving birth to service jobs such as assembly, transport, retail sales, and finance. Oh, and what has the War on Drugs given us other than Big Pharma and 70% of Americans hooked on prescription drugs? They lobbied to use taxpayer money to destroy foreign competition. nobs 20:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
You worthless piece of shit, how dare you compare me to the Hitler Youth. Every day I wake up actively fearing for my life, I fear a nuclear exchange, I fear me and my girlfriend being outed and driven out of town, I fear a fucking reality t.v. star with the attention span of a gnat and the intellectual curiosity of a box of hair being put in charge of the most powerful military in the world. You want a better comparison? Look in the god damn mirror. It's Trump apologists like you, who hemmed and hawed and said "he doesn't really mean such and such" and "he's a New York liberal!" that helped put him into the office. I swear on my grandmother's grave you will rue the day you did. That is, if you have even the slightest self awareness to realize when the wheels come off the economy, when the coal mines don't magically reopen and when grocery store employees still say "Happy Holidays." Merry fucking Christmas. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Your catharsis is getting to the root: Fear creates Anger; Repressed Anger causes bi-polar disorder, commonly known as Depression. You must deal with the Fear-factor to avoid anger and depression. See 2 Timothy 1:7, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." nobs 22:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll stick to 25 MG of Sertraline a day thanks. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)