Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Life imprisonment for knowingly hiring an illegal alien doesn't strike you as excessive?

Go ahead and try to amend the first amendment, but I doubt you will get very far.

As to my tone of condescension: considering your silly hashtags of
"#BuildThatWall
#RepelTheMuslimInvasion
#StopIslam"
on page 368 I doubt what I said will be all that frowned upon. Of course, if I truly offended you, I apologize. Would you apologize to me if I were to tell you I am a Muslim and a proud American?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Life imprisonment for knowingly hiring an illegal alien doesn't strike you as excessive?

No.

Think about everything entailed by hiring an illegal alien. Why did he hire that illegal alien? How has that affected the body politic? What kind of person/character does it express on the part of the person doing the hiring?

Would you apologize to me if I were to tell you I am a Muslim and a proud American?

Absolutely not. Even if you were a muslim (and so offended by my postings in this thread) or black (and so offended by my comments in another thread to the effect that I like Johnny Rebel), nothing that I've said is personal or intended to disparage any individual person.

And see, this is where Muslim doctrines as dangerous come into play.

From what I understand, it's perfectly permissible in Islam for a muslim to lie to a non-muslim in order to promote Islam, or else, to preserve himself.

I have absolutely no reason to trust a muslim when that muslim is permitted by his religion to lie to me.

Note, of course, that this isn't personal.

Even if you were a Muslim, you might be completely truthful when you say that you are a proud American (and so imply that you prefer American law to Shariah law).

Nonetheless, as a Muslim (if you are a Muslim), I have no reason to think that you are being truthful.

Then you don't understand very much. Ignored.

Panning a whole religion as "untrustworthy" isn't something that's ok here. Rein it in and be polite.

 motyak wrote:
Panning a whole religion as "untrustworthy" isn't something that's ok here. Rein it in and be polite.

I most certainly will not "reign in" such claims. It's true.

It's a well known Muslim practice. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

If x believes that it's OK to lie, then x is not trustworthy. The very basis of trust is that I can expect that x will be truthful. If Muslims believe the tenets of their faith, they have to believe that it's OK to lie, at least in some circumstances.

Do you trust people who think it's OK to lie to you?

Answer me that, motyak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And while we are at it, Motyak:

After you are done reviewing the wikipedia article, I fully expect a retraction and apology on your part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, in protest, Motyak, I quote at length the words of St. Thomas Aquinas.

You want to accuse me of being rude? Then let's see you accuse the angelic doctor himself:

"On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly" (Summa Contra Gentiles I.6.4).

You think that what I've said is rude?

You think that what St. Thomas says is rude?

Ban me if you want.

But first, why don't you show me your credentials and your exceedingly great education.

Seriously, man. Who are you to censor me?

Traditio wrote:

sebster wrote:Its not wrong, but it's also nothing new. Because people are self-interested, any system will produce situations in which utility maximising individuals will operate in ways that are perverse from a society wide utility point of view.

There's not really anything that can done about this, no system can overcome self-interest, outside of combining every human brain into a single, collective conscious. Which is probably not going to happen any time soon.

I think you underestimate the power of the State.

I think you fail to understand the limitations of the state and the limitations inherent in any economic system. You have confused the government’s potential for absolute power in specific instances with absolute power.

That is to say, just because government has absolute power to make something illegal with punishment up to an including death, doesn’t mean government has the power to actually stop that thing happening, or to control the consequences of that new law.

I quote Judge Dredd from America:

Please don’t.

Anyway, everything you wrote after the Dredd quote was very silly. Shocking, I know, that an absurdist comic would produce political thought that is not particularly well grounded in the real world, but there it is.

In case I actually need to explain this to you, it’s a total nonsense to claim you desire economic justice, and then argue that a bunch of white collar crimes should receive life prison sentences. Economic justice won’t be achieved by ignoring judicial justice.

You may possibly have an interesting point of view, but until you drag it back to reality then your posts will just be more internet crazy noise.

Traditio wrote:

Seriously, man. Who are you to censor me?

A forum moderator?

sebster wrote:I think you fail to understand the limitations of the state and the limitations inherent in any economic system. You have confused the government’s potential for absolute power in specific instances with absolute power.

That is to say, just because government has absolute power to make something illegal with punishment up to an including death, doesn’t mean government has the power to actually stop that thing happening, or to control the consequences of that new law.

No, that's very true.

That said, I think that this line of objection casts doubt on absolutely any law whatsoever. You see pro-abortionists making the same kinds of claim:

"If the State makes abortion illegal, then women will move their activities to illegal back alley abortions, and that would be even more dangerous to the women than what happens now."

But you don't see this argument being raised about any number of other laws.

"If the State makes murder illegal, then murderers..."

Yes, it's true that the capacity of the State to enforce the law is limited. This in and of itself doesn't imply that the State: 1. shouldn't try and 2. can't change things for the better by so doing.

Please don’t.

Anyway, everything you wrote after the Dredd quote was very silly. Shocking, I know, that an absurdist comic would produce political thought that is not particularly well grounded in the real world, but there it is.

For what it's worth, I could be citing actual "authorities" on political philosophy. I could cite Plato, or Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas. To a lesser extent, I could cite other people.

I just like quoting Judge Dredd because the lines are often just so incredibly good.

"Justice has a price. The price is freedom."

In point of fact, the line is just true. Justice and freedom (understood in the libertarian sense of "do whatever I want") are absolutely opposed.

If there is a strong obligation of justice for a business owner to do x, y and z, then he does not have the ethical freedom, nor should he have the legal freedom, to do otherwise.

In case I actually need to explain this to you, it’s a total nonsense to claim you desire economic justice, and then argue that a bunch of white collar crimes should receive life prison sentences. Economic justice won’t be achieved by ignoring judicial justice.

My answer must be that you are simply underestimating the gravity of certain forms of white collar crime. How long can I get put away if I steal a car?

Traditio wrote:
Do you have a compelling argument against enacting harsh laws against capitalists who violate economic justice?

Okay, you also have little to no knowledge of what economic justice is, and means. It’s not a codified set of laws that a person can clearly be in adherence or breach of. At it’s most coherent it’s the notion that economics shouldn’t just value utilitarian values but notions of equality and fairness as well.

It never gets used in a judicial/punitive sense, because that’s just a total nonsense. It’s used in policy discussion, on whether a policy might produce not just stability and growth, but also protect/enhance fairness/equality.

I’m getting the impression you’ve heard the term somewhere, and are now using it because it sounds like it might just relate to an idea you have in your head, which is this very mixed up kind of notion about capitalists are bad because bad things have happened to working class people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
It's a well known Muslim practice. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

If x believes that it's OK to lie, then x is not trustworthy. The very basis of trust is that I can expect that x will be truthful. If Muslims believe the tenets of their faith, they have to believe that it's OK to lie, at least in some circumstances.

And if you honestly believe that diverse cultures and entire peoples can be defined by a line of text in a book, even a central book, then you understand nothing about how people actually work.

Go out and meet people. Learn. The world is so much more complex than you will ever know from just reading about 'clobber verses' on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Yes, it's true that the capacity of the State to enforce the law is limited. This in and of itself doesn't imply that the State: 1. shouldn't try and 2. can't change things for the better by so doing.

No, but it applies a very obvious test that a law shouldn’t merely sound authoritative, it should actually be useful in affecting real world behaviour. That you’ve ended up in a corner where you’re arguing against such a test should tell you how badly you’ve thought through your position, and how badly you’ve reacted to the obvious criticisms of it.

For what it's worth, I could be citing actual "authorities" on political philosophy. I could cite Plato, or Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas. To a lesser extent, I could cite other people.

Please don’t. I joked a few pages ago about you arguing from another millennia, it wasn’t an invitation to double down on that nonsense.

If there is a strong obligation of justice for a business owner to do x, y and z, then he does not have the ethical freedom, nor should he have the legal freedom, to do otherwise.

We differentiate ethics from law because we recognise the limitations of the state in actually enforcing positive behaviour. Well, we do, you don’t.

My answer must be that you are simply underestimating the gravity of certain forms of white collar crime. How long can I get put away if I steal a car?

No, I haven’t underestimated them. I never mentioned scale, you just made that up to argue against it. It’s absurd because you are applying life prison sentences to a property crime and calling it ‘justice’.

Traditio wrote:


1. "Ought" implies "can."

No, it doesn't. "Ought" implies "should", moral intentionality, not mere capacity.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You do realize that profit is the amount of money remaining after goods or services are purchased and the cost of providing those goods and services is deducted right? Wages are part of the cost of labor they are factored into the price that is charged. Nobody pays wages out of profit.

Actually, they do.... This is because there's Net Profit, and Gross Profit.

Gross profit = revenue - cost of goods sold. The cost of goods sold when dealing with goods manufactured by the company ( such as sofas) includes labor. That's what I wanted taught in my Econ class back in Colette and I've yet to find a source that contradicts that definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

The primary problem with a guaranteed minimum income is that it artificially inflates the cost of labor which increases prices and makes it harder for lesser skilled or educated people to get jobs and incentivizes automation.

I think you may be working with an errant conception of what a gauranteed minimum income is. That's where the government makes sure that everyone gets at least x amount of dollars per year. Let's say that the GMI is $12,000 per year. The government sends out checks to anyone making less than that to make sure that they have at least that much every year. This is presumably compensated for by taxing the higher bracket income earners. But it has nothing to do with the cost of labor.

It absolutely affects the price of labor. If the federal govt guarantees everyone, regardless of their employment status, a minimum income then businesses must pay more than that minimum to get workers to take a job. Why would you work for X amount of money if the govt will pay you the same amount of money if you don't work? That type of program creates an artificial salary floor set by govt policy not by the market value of labor so it increases the cost of labor.

$12k is a very low minimum income, very people could afford housing, utilities and food for only $1k/month. It would need to be at least $24k a year. We already have govt programs that provide benefits/assistance for housing, food and income that can reach combined totals greater than $24k annually. The govt could restructure those various programs into one streamlined program that issues a single monthly payment instead of separate payments for housing assistance, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, disability, etc but let's not pretend that those programs don't already exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Panning a whole religion as "untrustworthy" isn't something that's ok here. Rein it in and be polite.

I most certainly will not "reign in" such claims. It's true.

It's a well known Muslim practice. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

If x believes that it's OK to lie, then x is not trustworthy. The very basis of trust is that I can expect that x will be truthful. If Muslims believe the tenets of their faith, they have to believe that it's OK to lie, at least in some circumstances.

Do you trust people who think it's OK to lie to you?

You seem to be misconstruing taqqiya by ignoring its context. In Islam it's ok for devout Muslims to pretend to be non Muslims to avoid persecution by a hostile state or authority. It's no different than Christians hiding their Christianity and worshiping in secret in countries that ban religion or require everyone to practice an official state religion. Such people exist in numerous nations and regions right now. Hiding personal religious beliefs for the sake of self preservation doesn't preclude someone from being honest in any or all other circumstances. I dont see why you would believe that it does or how you could not see that using such faulty logic to make a derogatory generalization about a group of people would be considered an unkind act.

Traditio wrote:
No, that's very true.

That said, I think that this line of objection casts doubt on absolutely any law whatsoever. You see pro-abortionists making the same kinds of claim:

"If the State makes abortion illegal, then women will move their activities to illegal back alley abortions, and that would be even more dangerous to the women than what happens now."

But you don't see this argument being raised about any number of other laws.

"If the State makes murder illegal, then murderers..."

Because murders stopped entirely when murder was made illegal?

I'm so glad to find out that making something illegal completely and utterly stops it. There's now no rape, murder, theft or crime in general!

State confiscation of property, draconian laws, dislike of communism, and a deep hatred of a perceived foreign enemy. Yup, sounds like fascism to me.

Traditio wrote:
I could cite Plato, or Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas. To a lesser extent, I could cite other people.

What about when Aristotle disagrees with your views on homosexuality?

Because he was pretty cool with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
State confiscation of property, draconian laws, dislike of communism, and a deep hatred of a perceived foreign enemy. Yup, sounds like fascism to me.

Don't forget those damn homosexuals and their homosexual agenda!

To cite Plato or Socrates is basically an appeal to authority. What matters is if their argument on the specific issue makes sense. It's easily possible for the same person to hold a sensible view on Issue A and a ridiculous view on Issue B.

Trump, of course, is intellectually capable of holding sensible and ridiculous views on the same issue simultaneously.

Even if I may disagree sometimes with Traditio, I feel I have to defend his ideas:

"State confiscation of property, draconian laws, dislike of communism, and a deep hatred of a perceived foreign enemy. Yup, sounds like fascism to me. "

Draconian laws should be quiered by every citizen in the world. I don't get why one would want to be lazy with a thief.
Law is Freedom.
Draconian laws and laws enforcers make freedom last longer, everywhere and for everyone.
If you don't respect the law, you should be CERTAIN to be punish, not just think "oh, maybe I will have to paye 250$ and be free to do it again".

This is not fascim, this is freedom.

Foreign ennemy is true and real: in a world with so many countries and limited ressources, every state is a competitor.
Then there is the cultural difference, then the immigration etc...
We don't live in Heaven, we live amongst other individual people and countries, who are envious of our achievement (speaking for The West).

Every illegal immigrant / alien is: an American who loose his job,
another reason for the firms to lower the wages,
it weakens the identity of the Nation.

How can one be for ILLEGAL immigration ? There is a LEGAL way to come to a country, it should be the only way people come to a country.

Communism has proven its flaws, everyone should hate it.

About islam, don't forget the quran has been written directly under the dictation of god: it is not a book speaking about miracles or how you should behave.
It is the PAROLE OF GOD himself.
If you believe in god, you follow his leads. It is timeless, it transcends space and times

Murder hasn't disappeared, but, and you can't say otherwise, there are less murders than if it were legal.

Even if the State hasn't enough power to erase an illegal thing, it has the power to make it almost irevelant.
Particulary now, with all the technology

So... the calm before the storm... Wisconsin's Primary is tomorrow.

Simply stated, if Trump loses to Cruz, his chance to get to 1237 delegates on the first ballot would be almost impossible (provided Cruz doesn't flame out).

For the Democrat side, looks like Sanders is going to win... if he curb-stomp Clinton... look for some panicky reactions.

Sorry if I'm a little late with this, but Washington had 101 delegates up for grabs for Democrats correct? Why did Sanders only get 25 and Clinton 9?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/washington/

 godardc wrote:
Even if I may disagree sometimes with Traditio, I feel I have to defend his ideas:

"State confiscation of property, draconian laws, dislike of communism, and a deep hatred of a perceived foreign enemy. Yup, sounds like fascism to me. "

Draconian laws should be quiered by every citizen in the world. I don't get why one would want to be lazy with a thief.
Law is Freedom.
Draconian laws and laws enforcers make freedom last longer, everywhere and for everyone.
If you don't respect the law, you should be CERTAIN to be punish, not just think "oh, maybe I will have to paye 250$ and be free to do it again".

This is not fascim, this is freedom.

Draconian by definition means "excessively harsh and severe". I don't think anyone would argue in favour of excessive punishments, because it is by definition more than one feels is appropriate. Life imprisonment for anything but capital offenses is silly; it doesn't protect anyone and it gives up on even trying to reform people entirely. A state that just throws its hands in the air is abdicating its responsibility to protect its citizens.

 godardc wrote:


Foreign ennemy is true and real: in a world with so many countries and limited ressources, every state is a competitor.
Then there is the cultural difference, then the immigration etc...
We don't live in Heaven, we live amongst other individual people and countries, who are envious of our achievement (speaking for The West).

Every illegal immigrant / alien is: an American who loose his job,
another reason for the firms to lower the wages,
it weakens the identity of the Nation.

How can one be for ILLEGAL immigration ? There is a LEGAL way to come to a country, it should be the only way people come to a country.

You've jumped off the far end of Realism. Every illegal immigrant isn't an American who loses his job. There is not going to be enough Americans willing to do the back-breaking job in agriculture that is performed by illegal immigrants, for example. You're also assuming that every single illegal alien gets a job, which is so blatantly silly that I'm amazed you'd make the argument. I also can't see anyone anywhere in this thread being in favour of illegal immigration, so that's a strawman.

"Weakening the identity of the Nation" is actually another cornerstone Fascist argument (one that Fascism shares with nationalist conservatism), so I'm not sure how that's going to argue against the described society being Fascist.

If you honestly believe that the reason people don't like the West is because they're jealous of us I don't really know what you say. It's totally not the bombing, economic exploitation or 200+ years of imperialism screwing over large parts of the world, no, it's JEALOUSY. Totally.

I guess we should just let them jealously drown in the Aegean though.

 Da Boss wrote:
*rolls eyes* Sure, if I said taxpayer funded free healthcare and education would you find that more acceptable than taxpayer funded dramatic military overspend?

Yes. His earlier hesitancy about getting involved again in the ME was attractive as well. He has since changed a few times. It depends what time of day it is.

 whembly wrote:
So... the calm before the storm... Wisconsin's Primary is tomorrow.

Simply stated, if Trump loses to Cruz, his chance to get to 1237 delegates on the first ballot would be almost impossible (provided Cruz doesn't flame out).

For the Democrat side, looks like Sanders is going to win... if he curb-stomp Clinton... look for some panicky reactions.

This is what this thread should be about! What the heck happened to it?

I can't help but think Sanders is trying to win states to make a point while Hilary is trying to win delegates to actually be President.

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... the calm before the storm... Wisconsin's Primary is tomorrow.

Simply stated, if Trump loses to Cruz, his chance to get to 1237 delegates on the first ballot would be almost impossible (provided Cruz doesn't flame out).

For the Democrat side, looks like Sanders is going to win... if he curb-stomp Clinton... look for some panicky reactions.

This is what this thread should be about! What the heck happened to it?

Is it To-MAY-toes? Or To-MAH-toes?

That's my read anyways... time to guide this behemoth back to your daily politics!

I can't help but think Sanders is trying to win states to make a point while Hilary is trying to win delegates to actually be President.

Well... he's pulling Clinton hard to the left lately. So that's working...

Also, he's trying to rehabilitate "Socialisms". So... there is that.

Why do you feel that Sanders doesn't really want to be POTUS?

Is there something he has done/not done that has led you to this conclusion.

I feel he genuinely wants it...as it accomolishes at least two things: sticks it to the establishment and promotes his (and his supporters) ideas of equality and fairness in the economy.

So this is a thing that happened today:

Donald Trump tweets amateur campaign ad narrated by proud video game racist

Donald Trump—the personification of and punishment for everything terrible America has ever done—tweeted a thing earlier today, as is his wont. The candidate’s Twitter thing for this morning was a fan-created video called “Trump Effect.” Adorned by Trump with the caption “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!,” the video kicks off with some crowd-pleasing casual misogyny and then pivots into an almost coherent assemblage of blurry video clips and stock footage, with voiceover by Martin Sheen.

Presumably unbeknown to Trump—and to many of the followers who have retweeted the video more than 10,000 times—Sheen’s narration is lifted from the sci-fi video game series Mass Effect, in which the West Wing veteran voices a crypto-genocidal character called The Illusive Man. A shadowy, powerful figure who first appears in Mass Effect 2, The Illusive Man scorns alien races and seeks your character’s help to make humanity the supreme force in the Milky Way. That’s right: Out of all the game characters an amateur video editor could possibly reference, this Trump fan chose to highlight the words of an angry old white dude who practices racism on a galactic scale. It’s just another one of those crazy coincidences that give people the wrong idea about our soon-to-be 45th President Of The United States!

http://v.theonion.com/onionstudios/video/3952/640.mp4

By this afternoon, YouTube had pulled “Trump Effect” because of a copyright claim filed by EA, the current publisher of Mass Effect. As this article was being published, though, the video could still be viewed in Trump’s tweet. In case it disappears altogether, we’ve embedded a copy above, so future historians can consider this pop-cultural Freudian slip and memorialize it as the moment when some people connected the dots and began to suspect that this Trump character might be sort of a crummy fellow.

Also, I'm pretty sure the video was created as a parody, something that seemed to escape Mr. Trump.

@The MeanDM

If you recall when he first entered the race he stated that his primary goal was to pull the party to the left and he was in it to win so that he could do that. I don;t have the exact quote handy from the statement, but that was the gist i took from it. Therefore, it is open to interpretation.

The job of President is just a means to an end for him and if he can achieve his ends a different way, he would. I completely agree with his desire to "stick it to the establishment and promote his ideas".

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Why do you feel that Sanders doesn't really want to be POTUS?

Is there something he has done/not done that has led you to this conclusion.

I feel he genuinely wants it...as it accomolishes at least two things: sticks it to the establishment and promotes his (and his supporters) ideas of equality and fairness in the economy.

I think that, like Easy E pointed out, he wanted to pull the party/populace further left of where it is now.

I don't think that he quite felt he would do THIS good (or at least, as good as he has done so far), and because he is now in the position he's in, it is part "mission accomplished" and part, "well, we're this far, let's see how far the rabbit hole goes"

But at the same time, I think he does want the job because there is a certain part of me that says that while he has done quite a bit of good as a sitting Senator from Vermont, that's only one vote, from one state. Ive seen a number of youtube videos lately, mostly pointing out the flip-flopping of the other candidates, and the juxtapose those with clips of him from the 80s and 90s saying the same exact stuff as he is saying right now.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
So this is a thing that happened today:

Donald Trump tweets amateur campaign ad narrated by proud video game racist

Donald Trump—the personification of and punishment for everything terrible America has ever done—tweeted a thing earlier today, as is his wont. The candidate’s Twitter thing for this morning was a fan-created video called “Trump Effect.” Adorned by Trump with the caption “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!,” the video kicks off with some crowd-pleasing casual misogyny and then pivots into an almost coherent assemblage of blurry video clips and stock footage, with voiceover by Martin Sheen.

Presumably unbeknown to Trump—and to many of the followers who have retweeted the video more than 10,000 times—Sheen’s narration is lifted from the sci-fi video game series Mass Effect, in which the West Wing veteran voices a crypto-genocidal character called The Illusive Man. A shadowy, powerful figure who first appears in Mass Effect 2, The Illusive Man scorns alien races and seeks your character’s help to make humanity the supreme force in the Milky Way. That’s right: Out of all the game characters an amateur video editor could possibly reference, this Trump fan chose to highlight the words of an angry old white dude who practices racism on a galactic scale. It’s just another one of those crazy coincidences that give people the wrong idea about our soon-to-be 45th President Of The United States!

http://v.theonion.com/onionstudios/video/3952/640.mp4

By this afternoon, YouTube had pulled “Trump Effect” because of a copyright claim filed by EA, the current publisher of Mass Effect. As this article was being published, though, the video could still be viewed in Trump’s tweet. In case it disappears altogether, we’ve embedded a copy above, so future historians can consider this pop-cultural Freudian slip and memorialize it as the moment when some people connected the dots and began to suspect that this Trump character might be sort of a crummy fellow.

Also, I'm pretty sure the video was created as a parody, something that seemed to escape Mr. Trump.

Best thing EA has ever done lol.

I got maybe 10 seconds in and cringed into another state of existence. Woke up naked on my driveway and hour later....so thanks for that.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Sorry if I'm a little late with this, but Washington had 101 delegates up for grabs for Democrats correct? Why did Sanders only get 25 and Clinton 9?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/washington/

I think that was an early count, before voting counts had been finalised. Final count according to wiki is 74 to 27 in pledged delegates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Why do you feel that Sanders doesn't really want to be POTUS?

I'm not sure if anyone thinks he doesn't want to be President, it's more that he was never very likely to be President, and while he's done much better than almost everyone expected, his odds of being the Democratic nominee are still extremely slim.

And so once we establish that reality, the question becomes what Sanders is trying to accomplish. The simple answer is that he’s trying to raise the profile of important issues, income equality, affordable health and college. But then we look at behaviour lately, where he’s focussed more on attacking Clinton, and its clear he’s moved away from that early, positive, issue based stuff, probably because he now really believes he needs to win, or at least continue to threaten to win in order to gain… something. All I can see him achieving with this new strategy is helping the Republicans with their muckraking work.

He's campaigning as if it were the General Election...

Now that I think about it, just about every candidate is doing that now...

 sebster wrote:

And so once we establish that reality, the question becomes what Sanders is trying to accomplish. The simple answer is that he’s trying to raise the profile of important issues, income equality, affordable health and college. But then we look at behaviour lately, where he’s focussed more on attacking Clinton, and its clear he’s moved away from that early, positive, issue based stuff, probably because he now really believes he needs to win, or at least continue to threaten to win in order to gain… something. All I can see him achieving with this new strategy is helping the Republicans with their muckraking work.

Has he really started to attack Clinton? I have been out of the loop on this the last week but from what I have seen he has been very careful to NOT attack Clinton openly. Clintons staff have done their to best to paint him as the "white old mansplainer" (see the whole twitter thing about "berniesplaning") so I would be surprised if he went on the offensive, as that would open him up to that big time.