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.

 Breotan wrote:
Where is the youtube segment by John Oliver?

I remember when people used to get upset that Jon Stewart would comment on current affairs, and then "hide behind being a comedian". At this point, it's now gone so far in the other direction that we now expect comedians to have live news coverage of breaking events even on a show called Last Week Tonight.

 whembly wrote:

So the end justifies the means then... eh?

As long as the roads are built and the train runs on time... we can't ever criticize the political environment?

¡Viva la Revolución!

Congratulations, you completely failed to address any actual points. Of course you can criticise the political environment but only by actually making valid points.

For example you can criticise the Cuban government for its human rights record, which is severely lacking. But just spouting garbage about how Castro is evil and socialism is terrible and must be stopped isn't criticism. Has the cuban government done bad things? Yes, they have. Have they done good things? Yes, they have. It is up to the Cuban people to decide whether the bad outweighs the good and what to do about it if they think that it does.

As for the ends justifying the means, are you referring to the act of violent revolution in order to overthrow a tyrannical government? Because there would be some definite irony in an American claiming that that isn't a legitimate form of enacting political change.

 motyak wrote:
Let's make sure we aren't just quoting someone then wildly mis-attributing their points to better serve your own purposes. An honest mistake is ok, that is borderline "ftfy"-ing their post. Thanks.

Was this directed at me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So the end justifies the means then... eh?

As long as the roads are built and the train runs on time... we can't ever criticize the political environment?

¡Viva la Revolución!

Congratulations, you completely failed to address any actual points.

Actually, it should be apparent where I'm coming from...

Of course you can criticise the political environment but only by actually making valid points.

For example you can criticise the Cuban government for its human rights record, which is severely lacking. But just spouting garbage about how Castro is evil and socialism is terrible and must be stopped isn't criticism.

Castro's brand of socialisms *is* fething evil. The Cuban people are *not* free.

As for the ends justifying the means, are you referring to the act of violent revolution in order to overthrow a tyrannical ruler? Because there would be some definite irony in an American claiming that that isn't a legitimate form of enacting political change.

So, trading one evil for another...

It's like what Snake Plisskin said:

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

The Cuban people weren't "free" under Batista, either.

At least now they're literate, numerate and have healthcare whilst not being "free". They've moved up under communism.

Meanwhile in the US people are burdened by huge debts thanks to your education and healthcare systems. Is that not affecting their freedom?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Cuban people weren't "free" under Batista, either.

At least now they're literate, numerate and have healthcare whilst not being "free". They've moved up under communism.

Meanwhile in the US people are burdened by huge debts thanks to your education and healthcare systems. Is that not affecting their freedom?

No... it is not.

Wanna know why?

We can vote our political figures out of office.

We can protest...

We can write/speak against out political figures to our heart's content.

Try doing that in Havanna.

 CptJake wrote:
I think there is more to it than that. Pegging a currency to a commodity like gold also has some effect on the supply of the currency. We've seen the Federal Reserve increasing supply of dollars and making those dollars 'cheap' by keeping interest rates low. This has some folks upset.

Yeah, and that has two parts. There's people who lose out in a low interest environment - investors and the like. These folk have powerful voices but the only relatively numerous group are self-funded retirees, and even they're not that large a group.

So the way they get electoral relevance is by playing to the people who get confused about fiat money.

Looking at NY tally...

Both Clinton and Trump is leading their opponents by more than 15%.

 whembly wrote:

Castro's brand of socialisms *is* fething evil. The Cuban people are *not* free.

While Castro (and many like him) are definitely evil, Malus is right....


I could VERY easily sit here and say that our American brand of Freedom™ is ridiculously evil as well.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Castro's brand of socialisms *is* fething evil. The Cuban people are *not* free.

While Castro (and many like him) are definitely evil, Malus is right....


I could VERY easily sit here and say that our American brand of Freedom™ is ridiculously evil as well.

Yeah, Imma call BS on that.

We ain't no purty angels... but, we sure as feth ain't evil.

Well I mean we do have almost 1000 protesters arrested in D.C. so there is that.

 whembly wrote:
Bottom line... Trump and his ilk has been flatly unprepared to do the hard work and they have only themselves to blame.

Well, sort of. No argument at all that Trump has failed to get organised as well as he should, and it's cost him delegates and it will almost certainly cost him the second round ballot (which was a stretch anyway).

But that doesn't mean the system is okay. It shouldn't ever be okay that people turn up to vote for a candidate but end up with a delegate who may hate that delegate, but is required to represent him through one round of voting. That's a crazy system. There are better ways to produce a more democratic system, and better ways to allow the party to 'massage' the result towards their preferred candidate.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah, Imma call BS on that.

We ain't no purty angels... but, we sure as feth ain't evil.

You wouldn't call the illegal internment of US citizens during WW2 evil? What about conducting an "experiment" on one segment of the population, and denying actual treatment to victims during said experiment (Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment)?

What about using US citizens to kill other US citizens (Railroad owners v. union organizers, mining interests v. mining unions, etc.)? What about the mass extermination of entire populations (nearly the entire Native American population)?

Hell, on that last one, a rather prominent US general was once quoted as saying, "One dead buffalo is one dead indian."


Yeah, that's the fething model of virtue.

Need me to go on?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Bottom line... Trump and his ilk has been flatly unprepared to do the hard work and they have only themselves to blame.

Well, sort of. No argument at all that Trump has failed to get organised as well as he should, and it's cost him delegates and it will almost certainly cost him the second round ballot (which was a stretch anyway).

But that doesn't mean the system is okay. It shouldn't ever be okay that people turn up to vote for a candidate but end up with a delegate who may hate that delegate, but is required to represent him through one round of voting. That's a crazy system. There are better ways to produce a more democratic system, and better ways to allow the party to 'massage' the result towards their preferred candidate.

Sure... but that's the way it's been since day one.

Don't lose sight to the fact that it's a National Party, plus 50 state party rules.

'Tis why we have caucuses/primary/open primary/closed primary/proportional delegates/winners-takes-all/WTA by district/etc...

IF Trump can't get to a majority, then all bets are off. That's a feature, not a bug in a Constitutional Republic.

What I'd like to see on Primary voting day, is to have a hierarchy voting, where you list out your preference in order. For instance:
-Candidate Z is your first choice
-Candidate X is your second
-and so forth.

That way, when a candidate drops out, the heirachy get recalibrated. But the only that something like that can happen, is if EACH of the 50 state's party agrees to do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Yeah, Imma call BS on that.

We ain't no purty angels... but, we sure as feth ain't evil.

You wouldn't call the illegal internment of US citizens during WW2 evil? What about conducting an "experiment" on one segment of the population, and denying actual treatment to victims during said experiment (Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment)?

What about using US citizens to kill other US citizens (Railroad owners v. union organizers, mining interests v. mining unions, etc.)? What about the mass extermination of entire populations (nearly the entire Native American population)?

Hell, on that last one, a rather prominent US general was once quoted as saying, "One dead buffalo is one dead indian."


Yeah, that's the fething model of virtue.

Need me to go on?

No, you don't need to go on as I refused to let those shame in our history "define" who we are. They are horrible, and we've acknowledged it. But, that doesn't make us "evil".

Otherwise, you lost focus to what that word means.

Castro's dictatorial regime is still an evil dictatorial regime. No need to say "yeah but...".

 whembly wrote:

What I'd like to see on Primary voting day, is to have a hierarchy voting, where you list out your preference in order. For instance:
-Candidate Z is your first choice
-Candidate X is your second
-and so forth.

That way, when a candidate drops out, the heirachy get recalibrated. But the only that something like that can happen, is if EACH of the 50 state's party agrees to do that.

That's not a bad idea... I do have to wonder though, if this is fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.

By that I mean that up to this point, it has not been typical for one party to start a presidential primary season with 15 candidates. Even if there are only three candidates for a given party, I don't really see a ranking system vote "fixing" any issues with primary voting.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What I'd like to see on Primary voting day, is to have a hierarchy voting, where you list out your preference in order. For instance:
-Candidate Z is your first choice
-Candidate X is your second
-and so forth.

That way, when a candidate drops out, the heirachy get recalibrated. But the only that something like that can happen, is if EACH of the 50 state's party agrees to do that.

That's not a bad idea... I do have to wonder though, if this is fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.

By that I mean that up to this point, it has not been typical for one party to start a presidential primary season with 15 candidates. Even if there are only three candidates for a given party, I don't really see a ranking system vote "fixing" any issues with primary voting.

True...but, I wonder if that opens the floodgate in future elections.

I don't think this has a chance to happen, and all the crazy different elections will remain the same.

We have 50 labratories of democracy... eh?

Sanders down by about 15%, with 73% reporting. That's improving slightly, I'm guessing because upstate NY is coming in slower, and Sanders is stronger there. It was over 20% in favour of Clinton earlier in the count. Even if it comes down a bit more, the strong win for Clinton means Sanders chance goes from silly to really silly. Clinton will extend her delegate lead by about 20, and Sanders will have even fewer remaining delegates to catch up.

Sanders will stay in, but I wonder if he'll finally switch from hoping for a miracle win, and instead go back to building a socialist base within the party. Hopefully.

Meanwhile Trump has done enough to remain almost close enough to hit 1,237. The 2016 Republican primary staying true to form - whatever will produce the most unclear result and keep this thing dragging on even longer will happen.

 whembly wrote:
True...but, I wonder if that opens the floodgate in future elections.

I know all of the political science professors at my school are wondering the same thing.


For my own theory, I would suppose that this would depend on 2 things:

First, how does this election play out?
Second, how do the next four years with the new president play out.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Second, how do the next four years with the new president play out.

Presumably if Trump wins, we agree that the SCOTUS works just fine with 8 justices for 4 years.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Second, how do the next four years with the new president play out.

Presumably if Trump wins, we agree that the SCOTUS works just fine with 8 justices for 4 years.

Ha! Trump won't win. No way, no how.

He doesn't even put NY in play vs Clinton, as she has double the amount of votes for her than Trump.

Probably my favourite bit in the New York race is how screwy the system can get when you have congressional district voting, and some districts which are overwhelmingly in favour of one party. New York’s 15th is massively Democratic – but by Republican rules it has 3 delegate to award like every other district in New York. But because there’s so few Republicans in the district those 3 delegates will end up getting allocated by about 300 to 350 Republican votes.

 whembly wrote:
Sure... but that's the way it's been since day one.

Sure, and that’s a very good argument for why Trump shouldn’t whinge, but it isn’t a good argument for it being a good system.

IF Trump can't get to a majority, then all bets are off. That's a feature, not a bug in a Constitutional Republic.

That your nation is a constitutional republic is utterly irrelevant to how a private political party determines its presidential candidate.

What I'd like to see on Primary voting day, is to have a hierarchy voting, where you list out your preference in order. For instance:
-Candidate Z is your first choice
-Candidate X is your second
-and so forth.

That way, when a candidate drops out, the heirachy get recalibrated. But the only that something like that can happen, is if EACH of the 50 state's party agrees to do that.

That’s the system Australia uses in our elections! And it is a really good system, and would work much better for the primaries in the US. There’d be no issue of being in an early state, and risking your vote going to a candidate who drops out long before the end. There’d be no issue of what should happen if no candidate fails to reach 50% of the votes by the convention – everyone’s second choice would be allocated – open, clean, and completely democratic.

And it is worth noting Trump would be almost certain to lose under that system. With state delegates allocated proportionately Trump would have a much lower count than he has now, and he’d pick up very few second round votes. Hey, I’d be happy to go out on a limb and say if you had that system Rubio would probably still be in the race, and likely to pick up the nomination as other candidates dropped out and preferences flowed to him.

 sebster wrote:

That’s the system Australia uses in our elections! And it is a really good system, and would work much better for the primaries in the US. There’d be no issue of being in an early state, and risking your vote going to a candidate who drops out long before the end. There’d be no issue of what should happen if no candidate fails to reach 50% of the votes by the convention – everyone’s second choice would be allocated – open, clean, and completely democratic.

And it is worth noting Trump would be almost certain to lose under that system. With state delegates allocated proportionately Trump would have a much lower count than he has now, and he’d pick up very few second round votes. Hey, I’d be happy to go out on a limb and say if you had that system Rubio would probably still be in the race, and likely to pick up the nomination as other candidates dropped out and preferences flowed to him.

I'd totally go for that system in a heartbeat.

 whembly wrote:

No, you don't need to go on as I refused to let those shame in our history "define" who we are. They are horrible, and we've acknowledged it. But, that doesn't make us "evil".

Otherwise, you lost focus to what that word means.

Castro's dictatorial regime is still an evil dictatorial regime. No need to say "yeah but...".

We performed forced sterilization on Native Americans well into the latter half of the 20th century.

We still let entire sections of our population starve to death and die from easily preventable diseases.

We assassinate our own citizens and conduct human rights violations right now.

You might refuse to let this "define" who we are, but you are perfectly happy letting the gak-stains of history and current affairs define whatever other country or form of government you are told to dislike.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
That's not a bad idea... I do have to wonder though, if this is fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.

By that I mean that up to this point, it has not been typical for one party to start a presidential primary season with 15 candidates. Even if there are only three candidates for a given party, I don't really see a ranking system vote "fixing" any issues with primary voting.

Sure, the bloated debates were pretty crazy, but the field is generally quite crowded at the start of the primaries. In 2012 there were 7 Republicans in contention, in 2008 it was 8, not that many less than this year’s 11.

What’s different is that in past elections the result has been clear enough for the party to form around one candidate in an informal way long before the convention. But then a system that is defended on the grounds that generally the result is so obvious that the system details don’t matter isn’t a very good system.

 whembly wrote:
Sure, if you want to ignore his patterns... but, go ahead and spin away. I mean, he still won't disavow his 1985 praise of Castro.

His "patterns," huh? That only matters for people like you that don't understand nuance and only see the world in black-and-white.

Did you setup a sister city in the USSR as the mayor of Burlington, Vt.?

That notion is so laughably stupid and something I've already explained to you so I'm going to skip to the next thing.

Did you also travel to Nicaragua to praise the rise of Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government, while calling it a “heroic revolution.” Are you calling for a revolution in America?

While your icon Ronald Reagan was illegally selling arms to the other side while they committed mass human rights violations? Were the Contras not also "evil?"

If not, then no... that's asinine to assume you support the Greek government by simply visiting that country.

That doesn't seem to stop you from doing it.

So please, stop trying to whitewash Sander's past.

I'm not, I'm just refuting your bs.

He seems like a nice guy... but a misguided nice guy.

That reminds me of someone on this forum...

Reminds me of the current President a bit.

Sure, Whembly.

 whembly wrote:
Speaking of that... here's a good read from an actual Denmark Socialist Democrat:
I’m a democratic socialist from Denmark. Here’s what Bernie Sanders gets wrong.

Stop drilling, you've hit oil!

One person's opinion, huh? Well, I guess that settles it and we can no longer discuss. Thanks for clearing everything up for us!

Looks like Trump will get ~90 delegates tonight in NY... which would put him in "reaching" distance of the 1237 target.

It'll really boil down to CA and IN in my opinion to see if Trump makes it on the first ballot.

Clinton blasted Sanders 58 to 42.

New York is America.

Trump got a bit over 500,000 votes. Clinton got a bit over 1,00,000 votes.


Extrapolate to the nation, and there are the 2016 Presidential results.

 Ustrello wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.

The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.

Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school

Those do not make for a socialist state because those things are "the state doing anything, at all" which even right-wingers want it to do. Socialism is more specific than that.



And, well, the US isn't really doing too hot on the whole public education, welfare and infrastructure front lately, anyway...

Well if you want to move the goalposts that is fine. But I am going by the marx definition which why I said the US is a quasi socialist state because it does provide state services.

No. Just no. The defining feature of Marxism is the common ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, required because the act of earning profit off of someone else's work means the people being exploited lose some of their humanity. You don't get to make up definitions just because they suit you. By your definition Nazi Germany was quasi-Socialist. It's a trainwreck of an argument.

You conveniently leave out marxs levels of state in which in the socialist the state does start to provide for the people while having a blended economy of private and public owned ventures. So no your argument is too narroe and doesn't look at the breadth of his statements.

Bismarck also argued for the creation of a social security net. You're pretending that the only ideology to argue in favour of social security programs is Marxism, when it isn't even the defining feature of the system. Try again.

 whembly wrote:

Sure, if you want to ignore his patterns... but, go ahead and spin away. I mean, he still won't disavow his 1985 praise of Castro.

That isn't what he said. But keep lying! Keep posting from Business Insider, that will make people trust your opinion.

Ok, here we go:

Former US treasury secretaries say that a UK exit from the EU would cause the World's economy to collapse or something

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/20/eu-exit-damage-uk-special-relationship-with-us-larry-summrers

A UK exit from the EU would result in the Cleveland Browns winning the super bowl warns another US treasury secretary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36087583

I didn't realise Britain was so important. Now we've got 5 days of Obama to look forward too

The other day, I was ranting about American warnings about a BREXIT, now I welcome it, as it will probably boost the OUT vote.

Of course Britain is important.

We're the fifth largest economy in the world, and arguably the second or most important in international finance, taking into account the worldwide insurance market.

The UK economy is currently strongly tied to the overall EU economy, in ways that will have to change after Brexit.

It's impossible that Brexit won't cause upsets in the UK, European and world economy. Just the announcement of the referendum caused some wobbles.