Current Politics & History Only Thread

[quadz]

When the tea party highjacked the republican party most of them were straight up loony!! How could it get any worse!?

Democrats: "Hold my beer"

Haha; indeed. The Democrats have undoubtedly been co-opted by their own faction of loonies. (And I say this as someone who had leaned Democrat most of his adult life.)

All they gotta do is this:

Have a position on things. State that position in clear language. Then when you get elected, actually DO those things.

Or, just blatantly reverse your position to fit the narrative of the day:

[Punk_FAS]

I disagree that they changed their position. Has the context not changed at all from when those earlier tweets were first made until now? They've been consistent in their aims of having a fair and thorough investigation take place.

Clearly they each felt that recusal wasn't sufficient back when Sessions first did so (and a few months after that for Warren - btw, are we 100% sure that comment, in June, was about the recusal?). Since his recusal, Trump has lambasted Sessions both publicly, and privately as well (reportedly), for said recusal. Trump ultimately forced Sessions' resignation (read: he fired him) because Sessions recused himself, trying to do what he felt was appropriate for the investigation, under the circumstances. Now, it's not merely that Trump forced Sessions' resignation that has those other politicians upset, it's why Trump has done so. This isn't them finally getting what they initially insisted on - the circumstances have changed significantly. Who does Trump appoint to replace Sessions now? He appoints the person who has been very critical, in public, about the merits of the investigation. How is it reasonable for Trump - one of the main focuses of the investigation, a person who has incessantly referred to it as a "witch hunt", and a hoax - to hand pick the person who will oversee this investigation, and for this person to have intimated that he would shut down the investigation, or greatly limit it, as well as essentially calling it hogwash as well?

I think it's clear that those other politicians are taking those things into consideration when they've made their recent comments. Those details weren't in play (among many other things I'm sure I'm not thinking of) 1.5+ years ago when those initial tweets were created.

[haunted]

Why are you defending them? 

[R. Hayabusa]

it's completely compromised politicians. you can tell who they are controlled by. who is replacing the former official? what are they for/against. who is funding the opposition? to find who rules over you,are the ones you're not allowed to criticize.

[|iR|Focalor]

to find who rules over you,are the ones you're not allowed to criticize.

The jews? Wait... I thought I was the racist piece of shit around here.

And while I'm half-joking... it wouldn't surprise me if you really did mean the jews. You seem to be the infowars type.

[R. Hayabusa]

i used to watch infowars, i realized it was a bunch of hype mixed with some semi-factual tidbits of info.  now i just read blurbs of news in the facebook and take it with a grain of salt. i usually only consider official .gov .org type headlines with multiple sources that prove it's legitimacy. it usually is the people with the most money that have the most control. however the worm has turned it seems. we know a market bubble has been hovering for a long time. the architects of the old system aren't going to be able to create another fiat system again.

[quadz]

"This guy should be banned from speaking!"
"What's something he's said you disagree with?"
"Uh… I don't really know what he says."

"This guy's speech leads to people being murdered in synagogues!"
"But, he's Jewish…"
"… *slogan chanting increases*"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in1og1-uOEA
<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/in1og1-uOEA/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/in1og1-uOEA"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/in1og1-uOEA" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/in1og1-uOEA</a>

[|iR|Focalor]

  Ben Shapiro is not racist... not even a little. He's certainly not facist... not even a little. He's a fast talking and quite dorky Reagan-revering conservative. I've listened to his radio show a few times, not really because I like him, but simply because it comes on for about an hour between two other shows I sometimes listen to. So I say none of this as a "fan" of his at all. I'm as neutral and unbiased towards him personally as one can be. I don't necessarily agree with "Republican" politics in general, but Ben Shapiro as a person is NINE THOUSAND TIMES more intelligent and articulate than any 100 of these dumbass kids put together.

[haunted]

Yes.

Shapiro is a very articulate guy and can out debate anyone. He's sharp as a tack even if we don't agree with him all the time.

That video embodies what I can't stand what's going on currently. Is it possible to vote blue, but still call out the democrat party for losing their way and being ridiculous?

No, you're a racist Nazi trump supporter.

[Sgt. Dick]

Most of the people there appear to be just followers who don't really know any of the facts.  If most of them were to actually have a debate, they would look foolish.

[quadz]

This youtuber presents an interesting thesis.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZWSoV6zE0M
<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bZWSoV6zE0M/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bZWSoV6zE0M"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/bZWSoV6zE0M" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/bZWSoV6zE0M</a>

I hadn't been aware of the degree to which game publishers (as well as, indirectly, large retailers like Wal-Mart) are structuring financial incentives in developer contracts based on Metacritic score thresholds. (For example: The developers of Fallout: New Vegas reportedly missed a million-dollar bonus by 1 "point" when the game garnered an overall score of 84 on Metacritic, instead of the 85 stipulated in their contract with Bethesda.)

And so: as a developer if you want to earn those bonuses, the smart strategy may be to inject politics into your game that aligns with that of the ideologues and activist 'journalists' writing most of the reviews.

Examples are given in the video of such activist bloggers—ahem!—"game journalists" knocking games' scores down for either having the 'wrong' politics; or, for being merely apolitical enough to lack sufficient 'correct' political messaging woven into the game's story.

It's bizarre to me that a game developer's financial well-being would be tied contractually to some arbitrary number on a review aggregation website. Particularly given the leaked emails a few years back that exposed a cabal of dozens of reviewers for high-profile gaming websites coordinating to tailor their game reviews along political lines.

[R. Hayabusa]

you can't reason, with ignorant, stupid, or otherwise biased people. especially when you're being paid to protest. that's why i like anarchy or minarchy at least. you can do what you want as long as you're not hurting anyone or stealing from them.

[|iR|Focalor]

you can't reason, with ignorant, stupid, or otherwise biased people.

Sounds like a biased statement.

that's why i like anarchy or minarchy at least. you can do what you want as long as you're not hurting anyone or stealing from them.

That's pretty much what people do right now. I'm not saying I disagree with those political philosophies, but from what you've said, it seems to me that you've only skimmed over the brief synopsis of what those philosophies entail. I'd urge you and anyone else to learn about it EXTENSIVELY before claiming to espouse such a position. You may find that you don't completely agree with it. And at the very least, if you do agree with it, you'll be better prepared to discuss it with people who aren't familiar with it... otherwise you might give them false information about it, or... they might get the impression that one of your opinions about any given topic might represent those political philosophies when they perhaps do not.

Anarchy is bullshit unless you live alone on an island. Governing and committees are necessary. Even prison gangs govern by committee, and they care less about "law and order" than anyone else. Humans are animals, no different from the other hundreds of animals that we watch on nature shows narrated by David Attenborough. The simplest of insects organize. Even the more complex and intelligent animals like wolves hunt in collective packs in order to be more successful and survive. Anarchy simply isn't in our nature. We are a social animal. If that were not true, riots would be far more prevalent and prolonged than they are. Then again, sometimes riot are fairly organized events. Organized protests have the potential to become riots, and those rioters attack property and uniformed police, not each other. Further proof we are an animal with social instincts.

Still... libertarian political philosophies aren't really the problem with video games and Metacritic. The problem is the blurred and now basically NON-EXISTENT line between corporate interests and political interests. Neither one of them respect the institution of democracy and the people. They both view the world as a casino, and they use polls and market research data to basically "count cards" and always have an unfair advantage over the individual who plays the game honestly and fairly. And sometimes they get idiots like video game reviewers to willingly work for them under the pretense that they are helping to change the world for the better.

[Sgt. Dick]

I heard Elizabeth Warren was forced to leave a restaurant the other night - she did not have a reservation 

[quadz]

Anarchy is bullshit unless you live alone on an island. Governing and committees are necessary. Even prison gangs govern by committee, and they care less about "law and order" than anyone else.

Yes; while I wish to live in a system that maximizes individual liberty, it also has to meet the following criteria:

 1. Does it scale?
 2. Are liberties preserved despite attempts to game the system?

1. Scalability: The system not only has to scale past the size of an island, it has to scale all the way to being the technologically supreme civilization on the planet. Civilizations that lag behind technologically will be unable to defend themselves.

2. Simplistic systems, e.g. "unregulated free market" that might sound like they maximize freedom on paper, are weak to game-theoretical attacks. When ethical behavior has an associated cost, profit margins favor the least ethical actors.