tuvarkz

Funny of a globalist to say that the perpetrator's nationality is what matters (Not that this makes your point weaker or stronger in any way). It happens to be, that the democratic process was not compromised. There was no machine hacking, people didn't get physically coerced into voting one way or the other, etc. It was all just propaganda. In which case, there is a point to be made that the MSM's demonizing of Trump should also be considered as interference with the elections. Also, are you really going to want to start another big, messy war over memes of all things? I've never had to buy into a winners-losers thing. It's how I think life works in general, as a nationalist meritocrat. I never needed to be convinced by Trump of something, he said things that I naturally agreed with already. The reason why is that Trump (on being a very very strong leader) managed to send the biggest middle finger to the Establishment EVER, including ivory tower academics and the media to boot, got all of them to rally against him, and won by being mostly truthful to his message. Sure, Obama is doing something symbolic, but he has all of the old establishment behind him, both Reps and Dems that don't like Trump being chummy with Putin. Just because Trump won a major victory, it doesn't mean the establishment is suddenly gone and banished. EDIT: And I can very well prove that communism is evil from a variety of standpoints if you require me to do so. The same report that has a disclaimer that renders it unaccountable for further inquiry on its truth value? EDIT: Also, @Res, that third-wave feminism has reached its death throes doesn't mean that we're suddenly going to go full patriarchal on this. Before third wave feminism even started, women already enjoyed full equality under the law (and even advantages over men in this aspect); and although society still viewed women differently than men (with both advantages and disadvantages), nothing short of full re-indoctrination and likely genetic engineering will change it. People treat others differently based on their sex and it's a perfectly natural thing to happen.

@Lord Raven, I never called Obama a loser (Someone who constantly fails in life). I called him a sore loser (Someone who doesn't take losing well-this does not imply the person is overall a loser). And then, considering the polarization and opposite direction policies that Democrats and Republicans largely had in this election, then yes, a winner/loser does apply this time for once. And Trump is likely to undo many things that Obama made. Also, @Phoenix Wright tampering? Boo hoo, if Russia was involved then at most they exposed the DNC's corruption (which the MSM should have been doing as it should've been their job as journalists), which was a favor to the populace. I don't know what your stance on Snowden and the NSA leak was, but if you think Snowden did the right thing, the logical extension is that Russia did the right thing as well. And propaganda can hardly count as tampering-famous/influencial people from all over the world were expressing their opinion on this election. Did they engage in tampering as well?

Oh wow, what a sore loser. Russia is quick to banter, though.

Or people could learn to control their natural urges. Note, while I do not support abstention-based education in teenagers (for whom it's normal to try and break the rules/rebel); it's a different topic when it comes to adults that should be in their full mental faculties.

My condolences to the families affected. Also, @Phoenix Wright, rulers harming their people to stay in power isn't a new thing by any means, even after the advent of democratic systems. Of course, this doesn't mean I truly give the theory any personal truth value beyond admitting that there is circumstancial evidence to it.

My point is: First, we cannot necessarily assume that Tillerson will make moves to benefit Exxon, and in the case he does, it will be far more obvious where the source of corruption is, rather than banking on a politician that might be bought by a myriad of different companies. It's the same reason why I don't have a problem with Trump owning a variety of companies on his own. Regarding a position of power: It is fairly clear that the US has a bigger economy and military than any other countries, overwhelmingly so in many cases. In any negotiation, the US has the capability to exert those powers if needed as a reminder that they can crush the other country, which places the US in an advantageous position in most situations. Also, regarding a trade war with China? They have already done their own shady movements with the devaluation of the yuan; and honestly, it might just be the reason needed to help the multiple separatist movements (and Taiwan) and crush the communist regime while they are at it.

I do not have much against having the CEO of a large company nominated for Secretary of State. If anything, if corruption appears and it favors Exxon, it will be far more obvious where it comes from, rather than some politician that has been funded by a myriad of different companies. Also, tact in diplomatic negotiations? The US should always negotiate from a position of power as is their capability to do so, particularly now that the relationship with Russia is set to be normalized. It shouldn't have to need tact.

The issue is that a 'popular' elected PM candidate could still be overturned by a no-confidence vote from the parliament; effectively voiding the popular election with the people having very little control over it. The issue with centralism is that with a parliamentary system, due to the need to form an absolute majority for effectiveness, too many coalitions will have to be made, effectively making most candidates' ideas and propositions have to compromise with the general policy or be outright discarded. While yes, these arguments aren't inherently against the concept of parliamentarism but rather issues that I see will likely come with it, the fact that I find them very likely to happen with parliamentarism constitute what I believe is a valid complaint against its implementation. I'll add though that personally I prefer a system where the executive has more power and it may be biasing my opinions on this matter though.

This. It would mean a forced two-party system with 100% ensured party establishment picks as potential PMs; where a huge populist upset would be needed for another party to surge; and the US isn't ideologically cohesive enough for it to happen. There's a reason why Trump and Sanders ran in the primaries for the major primaries even when they are outsiders.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty#BJS Unless this site is wrong, I see only two states having death penalty for it, and according to http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/drug-trafficking-distribution.html the sentence can go as low as 3 years. I do not find this 'extremely harsh' by any means.

Regarding drugs, to be honest I see the fight against them potentially being much more effective if the sentences on the consumers were reduced but those to the manifacturers and distributers made much worse. Ultimately, the consumer is a victim as well.

Except that the wealth isn't evenly distributed-it's extremely concentrated in the hands of a few. The large majority of the populace in both countries lives in very poor conditions. Having a small chance of being born in an extremely rich family doesn't compensate that otherwise the person will start at the bottom.

The fact that both the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia rank that high in the previous list makes me seriously doubt its accuracy.

More the latter, rather. While Trump omits any of the positives that Castro did for Cuba, the fact that he was the only one to accurately name the oppression that Castro inflicted upon his people makes his statement the one I'd consider closest to being truth.

And perhaps because the whole spirit cooking debacle, being involved with a person that fervently denied being a satanist despite overwhelming proof of the opposite; and the odd reference to making a sacrifice to Moloch in a wikileaks mail. Oh, and Clinton's stance on abortion likely.

Not less abhorrent, but rather, the difference between an evil person that however acts as a functional leader for his people; and a tyrant that opresses the people he's ruling over. The former is a monster that is doing his job and as such can be considered a 'good leader' (if a terrible person), while the latter can and should be condemned in both aspects. Its the same reasoning under which I classify Genghis Khan as a great leader for his people.

Fundamental difference-the dronebomb targets, although still a crime, are not US citizens. Castro made life hell for quite a considerable number of Cuban citizens.

Trudeau was sucking up to Cuba and his likely idealization of Marxism; as well as providing fuel to a new conspiracy theory that he's Fidel's son. Trump spoke truth and what any coherent western liberal should have said regarding a dictator's death.

Marxism is inherently bad because it fails to reward individual effort and talent, and as such it makes everyone overall less productive because there's no incentives to perform at their best. I believe that even the idealistic scenario for marxism would be utterly detrimental to humanity. Regarding the electoral college, I believe its main flaw is the ability for an elector to change the candidate the elector was chosen to vote for.

Attention, and possibly money. Clinton is probably trying to save face in something that she knows won't likely end up ending in her favor. Her win condition would be to flip multiple states, but best case scenario she'll only flip one, which wouldn't be enough to give her the presidency but still make her look bad.

https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/800057305693704193 This is me speculating, but it seems like Romney is not gonna be in Trump's cabinet.

They should keep polls on the rest of states as well-chances are a few of them might become swing states in the near future, and polls could help to see if a trend is forming.

Agreed on this, he's probably waiting until he's on the White House to rock the boat.

Oh wow mainstream media. Sure going out just with the family (and the Secret Service) for dinner and not telling the media about it is a total lack of transparency.