420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Lobbying by Nell Clettingdale - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 07:55:13 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.393460 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1496922913514.jpg -(30807B / 30.08KB, 450x340) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 30807
When someone is lobbying, who is courting whom exactly? You see lobbying usually involves taking a politician out and pampering him with something fun and expensive, be it fine food or a fund raiser for their campaign with music and dancing and alcohol and rich people, it basically involves the politicians chilling out with ex politicians and having fun except the only difference is the ex-politicians are being paid millions of dollars to have fun at these dinners and parties.

The implied message is, if you are good to us and do what we want, when you retire, you will be invited into the fold, we will vouch for you and you will get a bribe, ahem, job, from one of these powerful firms backed by gobs of corporate money. Not only do they fund raise for the politicians and help them stay in power, but they are silently holding a giant carrot in front of their noses and promising to let them have it when they retire but also threatening to take it away if they don't play nice. They can take away the fund raisers they can take away the jobs, they have far, far too much leverage in the situation. This shit should be illegal.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nell Clettingdale - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 08:17:19 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.393462 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I would also like to see campaign finance be done by the government levying a tax and giving each citizen an equal amount of credit that they can spend only on candidates campaigns. Every citizen of voting age would just get 100 freedom bucks or something and they could donate them to the campaigns of whichever candidate they wanted. This would be the only contributions allowed to the official campaigns. No more corporations are citizens and money is free speech bullshit. No more dark money in PACs. If you're anything but a free citizen speaking their mind you should have to explain exactly where the money for your propaganda is coming from. We should have complete transparency when it comes to outside politically active organizations of any and all types. Any posts made by a bot or shill need to be legally required to be labeled as such.

First past the post voting also needs to go in order to help get rid of the two party system. We should do a ballot where people rank their preferred candidates and if their first doesn't have enough to win, it will go onto their second, and so on down the line. So for example if you wanted Bernie but didn't want Trump to win you could put 1)Bernie 2)Hillary and if Bernie is eliminated because he didn't get enough votes, your vote will go to Hillary instead. I think if we had had this system in place with a three way race between Bernie and Hillary and Trump, Bernie would probably be president because he would get enough independents, democrats and republicans voting for him, the republicans would have put Trump as their backup option and democrats would have put Hillary as their backup option.
Nell Clettingdale - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 08:26:09 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.393463 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oh and also get rid of the fucking electoral college already. There is no reason everyone's vote shouldn't be equal. If people's votes aren't equal we don't have a functioning democracy, period. The popular vote should be all that matters. There's no reason for politicians to court people in Iowa and New Hampshire and Florida but not in Maryland or Idaho. People who live in MD or Idaho and who don't share the political views of the majority are completely disengaged from the political process because they know their votes will be meaningless. Without the electoral college politicians would have to target everyone equally and everyone would have a chance to be the deciding vote no matter where they live.
Basil Doggleridge - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:05:25 EST ID:pRGGMCNk No.393464 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If ranked choice voting was a thing (and you accept the fact that Sanders probably would've gotten the least amount of first place votes), Clinton would be president. Sanders gets eliminated first round, and since Sanders voters would be more likely to put Clinton as their second choice, most of those ballots would go to her.
Betsy Sishshit - Fri, 09 Jun 2017 03:32:11 EST ID:Eo5hm5lm No.393525 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In my country the parliament chooses the prime minister, I think that helps. We've almost always had prime ministers from one of the two big parties anyway but the smaller parties are still usually needed in coalitions.
Also the seats in parliament aren't geographical unlike some places which helps smaller parties too.

I think this works ok but I don't know how it would be in USA. Maybe they think it's important that the president is separated from the congress or something.
Oliver Pockspear - Fri, 09 Jun 2017 04:08:37 EST ID:FZwyp5B6 No.393528 Report Quick Reply

Yeah, most people understand this. Thing is, what are you going to do about it?

White Genocide? by Matilda Dullerted - Fri, 05 May 2017 22:34:08 EST ID:2VNuaTnk No.391635 Locked Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1494038048407.png -(172661B / 168.61KB, 500x375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 172661
Okay I've seen white genocide posted on other places over the past 5 years, and I've never bought into it because of stormfags. Never bought into it. Never believed in white supremacy. I still don't.

But between the racial politics from leftists about white people and their fanatic desire to bring in as many reproducing non-white people as possible to replenish Europe's aging population (while saying overpopulation is a huge problem), I'm convinced there is a desire to punish the Caucasian ethnicity for its sins on the world. It's like a backwards socio-political eugenics movement to create a raceless society where everyone is one color.

I reached this conclusion when Bill Nye had that one-child-policy segment on his show. Then it clicked.

Tell me this doesn't make sense.
Thread has been locked
Thread was locked by: Spunky
Reason: This pile of shit-tires has been burning for long enough.
299 posts and 48 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Archie Wunningdock - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 16:07:53 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.393480 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Boy, posts like this really are a scathing indictment of the American education system.
John Pittlock - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:58:22 EST ID:glUT7SYB No.393501 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Shoo you retarded christcunt the future immigrant. This website is only for Satanist drug users that listen to heavy metal. Go kill yourself for Satan or some shit. Faggot.
William Sizzlechudge - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 19:29:49 EST ID:NJv6BZqW No.393504 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1496964589419.jpg -(1230407B / 1.17MB, 712x872) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
white genocide is 100% real.

simply stating that i dont feel bad about what m ancestors did would make me lose my job

think about this
Oliver Clinningson - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 19:31:04 EST ID:OKTRjzWW No.393505 Ignore Report Quick Reply

That's a bald-faced lie, you ninny. Stop being a pussy. No one is going to fire you if you say, "I'm proud of my ancestors."
Betsy Sishshit - Fri, 09 Jun 2017 03:05:54 EST ID:Eo5hm5lm No.393524 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>broad and ambigious use of the word left
It's very similar in all of the left, pretty much all of the left that I've seen sees nationalism in one of very few different ways, in much of the world the right sees it similarly too but it's less homogenous there.
>understanding the refugee crisis not as a product of war and imperialism but as some social scheme to degrade wetern civilization.
No that's just completely incorrect. Of course things like that caused people to want to move (although much of it is because of wanting to make more money and not to escape war) but I'm not talking about people wanting to move to Europe, I'm talking about letting them in.
You don't have to allow everyone to come just because they want to, that's why the immigration is not to blame on bad conditions in the rest of the world but bad immigration politics in Europe.

ANTIFA by Betsy Burrywud - Mon, 15 May 2017 09:52:55 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.392108 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1494856375989.jpg -(84269B / 82.29KB, 1000x750) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 84269
I see us going back and forth about Antifa all the time. But what's really up with Antifa? What are our real feelings toward Antifa? Can we get some educated opinions about it and have a real discussion on the subject?

Why does Antifa exist? What are they hoping to accomplish? Are their methods acceptable?

Furthermore, I've got a question; is it reasonable for Antifa to exist, or is Antifa pure violent paranoia personified? Like are these people decent human beings, or schizophrenics, or brainwashed, or pawns of the media, or what?
210 posts and 52 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Phyllis Himblestone - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:29:34 EST ID:pmTuUrYa No.393406 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Actual Fascist here, just wanted to thank all the homeless drug addicted genetic defects called Antics for being the best recruitment tool we've ever had. Keep up the good work!
Basil Hummertock - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:39:18 EST ID:iYYYad4Q No.393407 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Their entire existence is based on fear

That's pretty funny coming from someone who lives in fear of imaginary fascism. You pieces of shit prove what scum you are by siding with low life criminals who deserve to be locked up. As a "prole" I'd gladly "betray my class" and side with the "bourgeois", your ideology is a cancer on this planet.
Albert Bunningdet - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:45:09 EST ID:pTm1Rna8 No.393408 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1496861109549.jpg -(7430B / 7.26KB, 188x268) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I'm sure there's thousands of people who would also like to thank them from distracting you from the real enemies your idiotic actions and world views are forming.
William Sizzlechudge - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 19:32:08 EST ID:NJv6BZqW No.393506 Ignore Report Quick Reply
antifa is cultural marxism
William Cinnerlock - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 20:23:56 EST ID:wPIzNzTk No.393511 Ignore Report Quick Reply
no u

The Muslim League and other shady organizations by Oliver Hurrypun - Fri, 19 May 2017 19:33:46 EST ID:lGv/X/N+ No.392407 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1495236826116.jpg -(9108B / 8.89KB, 156x156) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 9108
I've been wanting to talk about this, let me preface by saying I'm a Muslim so this isn't coming from a place of bigotry and hate.

Political organizations like Louis Farrakhan's Muslim League have done a lot of damage to the image of Islam, if you're a devout Muslim who wants to maintain the universal perspective this is evident.

Organizations like ISIS are a given, you have to be pretty fucking dense and hateful to think ISIS represents Islam but let's talk about these less in your face organizations (relatively less offensive. Relatively).

Malcolm X is widely seen as a black rights activist who went off the deep end into anti-white racism. What a lot of people don't know is this was due to him listening to Louis Farrakhan's twisted definition of Islam where black people are the superior race. Malcolm broke ties with Farrakhan later in his life after his hajj to Mecca made it obvious people of all races, white people included, were Muslim.

The damage was done however and X died a symbol of the Muslim black man lashing out at the white man for all the racial wrongs of previous generations and present malcontents.

This is something I regularly get as a white Muslim, from black or brown people. They tell me I "can't" be Muslim because I'm white. While I know this isn't true and isn't Islam, there's a huge amount of people, calling themselves Muslims or hating it from a distance, who assume this is basically true about Islam. It's the same on both ends of the spectrum.

Muhammad said;
""There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab. Neither is the white superior over the black, nor is the black superior over the white -- except by piety.""
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
67 posts and 14 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ebenezer Morrybanks - Sun, 04 Jun 2017 04:35:59 EST ID:EkRX+tDd No.393199 Ignore Report Quick Reply

you can be as critical as you want but you cant put yourself in the shoes of those who are at the top of the game. power is no longer (and never really was) just brute force, though thats still the ultimatum. it is secrecy and misinformation and leverage. imagine if your consciousness was all of a sudden transported back in time into the body of a roman politician in the middle of a meeting.

>quisnam sum ego?
Hannah Clayridge - Sun, 04 Jun 2017 13:48:44 EST ID:+YARkl21 No.393208 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Leftism was pretty much unknown in the Middle East prior to the colonial period.
Probably because the middle east, prior to ww1, was feudal and didnt have large labour movements meant for industrialized countries

>their own exposure to their ideology is itself a product of that same political, cultural and intellectual domination of the West over the Islamic world and is itself a Western school of thought that has simply been imported into an Islamic context from outside
It doesn't work that way. Political and economic theory are academic disciplines, not cultural traditions. You can no more "import" or "export" political theory than you can import Newtons laws or other such natural facts. Point is it's all knowledge and it is not exclusively bound to a specific civilization nor culture. Nor can the theory itself be solely implemented within a specific cultural framework.

>Soviet communism can just be seen as a product of the history of the Westernization of Russia
Tsarist Russia long maintained its own culture, ways from its western counterparts. National bolshevism was caused by the material conditions of tsarist Russia, not westernization. There is a stark contrast between Leninism and its offspring and the old school western communists/socialists of the 18-19th century aswell. Tsarist Russia wasn't westernized, it was already a part of the vast European intellectual development since the enlightenment.
Hannah Clayridge - Sun, 04 Jun 2017 13:53:23 EST ID:+YARkl21 No.393209 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are you talking about KRG kurds or KCK kurds? Kurds are a people numbering tens of millions across 4 countries, you'll have to be more specific.
Edwin Chopperhut - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 04:51:59 EST ID:1ye5mzdU No.393451 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Probably because the middle east, prior to ww1, was feudal and didnt have large labour movements meant for industrialized countries

Again, this is part of the point. Islam for 1400 years since its inception was monarchistic/aristocratic, not democratic or socialist, unless you want to broaden the definitions of what these terms tend to mean in their Western contexts to mean what is implied by Islamic concepts such as "zakat" (charity) and "ijma" (consensus), but I personally find these attempts by muslims and non-muslims to be disingenuous. The notion of a society without emirs and sultans would have been a scandalous idea to any devout muslim regardless of sectarian affiliation in the year 1500. When the Ottomans became aware of what happened in France during the Revolution, they were just as intent on keeping that "heresy" away as any of their Western counterparts.

Abrahamic religions are monarchistic religions by nature, from the way they view the universe as an empire ruled by a supreme imperial deity to the way they traditionally understand this deity to delegate authority amongst human representatives of his will through various processes of heredity and divine selection that favor a system based on the perpetuation of theocratic and aristocratic values.

>It doesn't work that way. Political and economic theory are academic disciplines, not cultural traditions. You can no more "import" or "export" political theory than you can import Newtons laws or other such natural facts. Point is it's all knowledge and it is not exclusively bound to a specific civilization nor culture. Nor can the theory itself be solely implemented within a specific cultural framework.

You are partially correct. Yes, political and economic theories are presented as scientific conclusions of a sort that remain universally true regardless of individual cultural circumstances, but that doesn't change the fact that an ideology like Marxism is the unique product of a secularized Prussian Jew from a family of a converts to Lutheranism living in the social and political context of 19th c. Europe and that the values and theories presented in his …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Frederick Brookstone - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 14:27:31 EST ID:gvi0ksva No.393475 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I agree with your notion that the cultural barrier can reject the digestion of new ideas but I dont consider it a rule nor some social law. At the fall of the Ottoman Empire it was Ataturk and his crew that reformed a theological country into a representative democracy, something polarized and different.

>Europe and that the values and theories presented in his writings are a reflection of that particular social, economic and political context, tailored to respond to problems generally unique or best exemplified by his context and informed by the intellectual values of his particular time and place
Indeed. But is is important to differentiate his subjective views and the actual economic theories that have remained true for the past 200 years. Das Kapital does not only serve as a social, political and economic reflection, as you said, it is also very much a factual, economic theoretical blueprint (or atleast the majority of it is) regardless of the social and cultural circumstances. We have the same exact economic system we have now as we had during his time. As such, his critique of capitalism is not only back true then but also now.

>you fail to recognize is that Islamic lands remained much more feudal for far longer because of the people's commitment to Islamic values
I'd rather argue that the economic system and the social circumstances as a whole is a result of the productive forces and political circumstances, rather than general religous values in the public. Northern Syria, as an example, hasn't been industrialized for the duration of the ba'ath regime because of the racist policy aimed at underdevolping the circumstances of the minorities living there. I am just saying there a many more factors behind the subject of the development of the means of production in any place.

>general weakening of Islamic values
Is this true though? Sure, you can give an example of Iran pre-CIA coup being modernized and progressive but iirc the governments and their publics installed after the western make-up of the current borders have remained steadfast islamic.

>You cannot import leftism into the islamic world without ultimately destroying the islamic religious element of that society that acts a wall or without compromising certain dimensions of leftist thought to ultimately serve the needs of Islam.
Of course, this is dialectics. I never refuted this.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Reality Winner by Cedric Trotgold - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 09:55:02 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.393338 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1496757302668.jpg -(105123B / 102.66KB, 634x813) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 105123
So did The Intercept screw this chuck or what? I know they've always been vehemently opposed to Clinton and denying that Russia had anything to do with the election or collusion with the Trump campaign.

Did that cause them to treat her leak so poorly, leading to her arrest?

Can any leakers Trust The Intercept anymore?
25 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Henry Chammerbadging - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 20:43:27 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.393434 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The idea that Trump is an incompetent asshole, and the idea that US intelligence agencies are dishonest assholes, are not mutually exclusive ideas.
Phyllis Criblingham - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 20:52:38 EST ID:EkRX+tDd No.393435 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1496883158243.jpg -(36478B / 35.62KB, 560x391) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

if they had a record of giving the public accurate intel and not pulling false flags and other shady shenanigans then maybe they would have some credibility. but they dont.
Emma Pockspear - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 06:55:22 EST ID:MyuDzBUL No.393456 Ignore Report Quick Reply

4 posts in row — wew boy. Why is it the people with the shittiest ideologies that consistently do shit like that? For a minute there you actually had me as 4 separate people agreeing with one another.

Also, acting like Glenn Greenwald is personally responsible for everyone he employees is completely fucking ridiculous. That ain't how the world works.

Idgaf about Russian hacking, either.

If Russia's goal is to destroy the United States, or weaken their grip on all things global, that's something we should all be able to support and show an appreciation for.

At the end of the day, all this shit is pointless. You can't definitively proof who hacked who — governments in all parts of the world are collecting code and traces typical of other governments. USA hackers can hack emails, and make it look like Russians did it, no problem, and vice versa.

Trying to start wars over hacking is so damn dumb. Barring someone admitting to hacking, or someone literally getting caught in the act, all you can do is acknowledge it and resolve not to point fingers, because once you start pointing fingers? Hackers win. They want you to think Russia did it.
Phyllis Criblingham - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 07:18:04 EST ID:EkRX+tDd No.393458 Ignore Report Quick Reply

its almost like all of this is a distraction. layman news people debating about hacking meanwhile we have many wars going on, losing many men, and even more "classified" operations. i relish in american power, i love living here, but lets not pretend we arent a murderous resource hogging empire.
Martin Cevingstedge - Thu, 08 Jun 2017 07:39:03 EST ID:+cRvxir8 No.393459 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Nobody gives a fuck about Hillary anymore. Get over it.
Lmao of all the people nb

The Second Amendment is a Doomsday Provision. by Wesley Crebblefid - Sun, 28 May 2017 19:54:17 EST ID:LoF4eMRz No.392803 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1496015657100.gif -(429517B / 419.45KB, 500x383) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 429517
66 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Eugene Gooddale - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 20:19:52 EST ID:/M5uJIGL No.393431 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1496881192716.jpg -(12588B / 12.29KB, 259x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Lol when did black people get disarmed? Everyone I know and their granmom has a gun. The alt right think antifas scary wait until their dumb asses try to disarm blacks. Knowing how they're c-ucks they'll prob stick to having watered down street battles with college activists.
Lillian Blatherwell - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:25:37 EST ID:iYYYad4Q No.393436 Ignore Report Quick Reply
LOL who's trying to disarm blacks? This site is my favorite place to see delusional nutjobs running their mouths. You probably think fascism actually exists in America too huh?
Hamilton Bunfoot - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:51:32 EST ID:Vwoc9qnJ No.393437 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>LOL who's trying to disarm blacks?
fair enough. the alt-right is only trying to disenfranchise/extirpate/eliminate blacks, no disarm them.
Phineas Finnerridge - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 22:30:33 EST ID:cnSLCLbt No.393440 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You can't do that to any group of people effectively if they aren't disarmed. Anyone with a functioning human brain can find out that one of the firs attempts at gun control in america was because of this.


No not saying the USA is fascist just know that anyone who has gotten into a position to have influence over people and inspire them to assert themselves and try to gain freedoms for black people have been imprisoned and murdered by the u.s. government and individuals that reacted to defend their races supremacy. That's OK though. The fact that cops lurking to imprison black men at high rates for mostly drug felonies is also OK. It protects you right? It also disarms them. Any one who knows basic law will agree with both these statistics, ask a criminal defense attorney. Or like cops do you see them as scum?

Get this. Fools who support this are such stallions because while blacks are statistically thrown in the system more the rate of incarceration and felonies for all youth males has risen since the 80s. Anything to keep those criminals away from your nice lil bubble right? Even if you to one day see someone faced with it.
Alice Blythecocke - Wed, 07 Jun 2017 23:35:42 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.393443 Ignore Report Quick Reply
FYI - The answer is, "California implemented strong gun control laws. The NRA had no problem with this."

Modern Tribalism by Shit Cregglelat - Thu, 01 Jun 2017 06:55:09 EST ID:Ch8PZtCp No.393017 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1496314509566.jpg -(117550B / 114.79KB, 750x563) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 117550
I was watching the Hillary Clinton interview from RECODE, and in the discussion about how social media changed the outcome of her campaign, she said something that made me double-take. She claimed to be a victim of the assumption that she would win, and that people thought what was said about her on social media didn't matter because "if there's an (R) next to your name or a (D) next to your name, you end up falling in line with your candidate."

This is kind of like realizing that there are mustard people and ketchup people, and I'm just a fucking weirdo who just likes hot dogs. There are restaurants where you can only get ketchup because the owners are ideologically opposed to mustard. Not even making this shit up.

Personally, I blame McDonald's. They've done an extraordinary job at subliminal advertising over the decades, and if they offered more than just ketchup and mustard, say fry sauce, people might get the idea that you could go for a third candidate.
16 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Molly Haffingwill - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 01:17:41 EST ID:FZwyp5B6 No.393151 Report Quick Reply

Intelligence has nothing at all to do with getting elected. If you have the money, connections and right message, then anyone can be elected president. Even an emotionally unstable idiot man-child.
Jack Smalldock - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 01:57:07 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.393152 Ignore Report Quick Reply
When times are tough, people search out for a populist leader. On one side, Bernie was the progressive populist, most beloved politician in the USA trying to bring the USA to the rest of the first worlds standards.

On the other side, we had a regressive populist who tickled the ears of some of the worst people in the USA and these ones that were hoping for something different and better.

It doesnt take smarts to win elections. You just need to represent the sickness of your nation, either do it positively or negatively. Unfortunately, Trump was everything no one should ever hope for. He just reflects the worst if America, even down to his appearance.
Basil Braffingfield - Mon, 05 Jun 2017 03:30:26 EST ID:LRFAn6em No.393266 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Shit Baddlechen - Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:09:17 EST ID:kbOtVmtd No.393290 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The dumbest reckless piece of crap politician to reach such a high level. There were no expectations of him. The right sure didn't, the left knew what he he was from square one. I hated that piece of shit since waaayy back. Long before these dumabass 'reality' 'your fired' shit programs started off. He is a compulsive liar.

Here, soince you seeem to be defending him, become the president of his build a grand wall $$$ share the wealth agenda, to fund rh=the wall so we don''t have to.

Trump, wahhh the most whiny president likely ever.

Remember blago who tried to sell Obmama's seat, same pathetic mentality.
Like most Republicans in government, don't know what they are doing.

Couldn't handle the job, just like trump. Cannot handle authority and basic principles of responsibility.
Sidney Foblinggold - Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:56:25 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.393298 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Republicans are now in power but won't hold it long because at the end of the day they have no ideas. Simply removing everything isn't creative. It's destructive. People will grow ever more pissed off an the pendulum will shift.

Jury Trials by Basil Chuzzlelot - Wed, 31 May 2017 14:39:02 EST ID:l4rkxwo6 No.392977 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1496255942300.png -(1861585B / 1.78MB, 1197x923) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1861585
So I've long wondered about this, and the question rose up again after reading this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/us/police-shootings-trial-jury.html
What is the point of jury trials? How can you possibly hope to have a fair and consistent judicial system when you're relying on the decisions of random impressionable people, most of whom have their own agenda, to decide on whether to move forward with a trial or acquit? And with finding the 'right' jurors being another huge part of the trial that doesn't have anything to do with the accusation, don't jury trials open the door for an even bigger influence of money on who is convicted and who isn't?
If anyone could explain the advantages of this system to be, I'd be very grateful. As it is, I'm very, very glad we don't have anything like it in Germany.
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Esther Trotwell - Wed, 31 May 2017 22:55:01 EST ID:TdUXjOCH No.393004 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it helps the powers that be to maintain a grip of control on the people, if they can parade out a group of monkeys to chant the right things, they can tell the whole monkey congregation "see, everything is fair for you! this wasnt the government, it was fellow monkeys, so it is good!"
Charles Fipperlet - Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:55:56 EST ID:8QOUkf7T No.393076 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Supposed to balance the power of government with the power of the people.

Doesn't really work. Neither do trials without a jury. Law itself is essentially a broken system. Humans are constantly changing how it works and are never satisfied with the results because morality has yet to be properly quantified and codified.
Walter Fubberwot - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 03:10:50 EST ID:T+nMx2l2 No.393101 Ignore Report Quick Reply
They attempt to choose an 'acceptable pool of 'unbiased' people. Disregard those that are not deemed fit for jury duty in 'certain cases' with pretty basic questions. Both the district attorney (<prosecuting attorney, and defense attorney need to agree on the pool of potential jurors.
And go from there. The questions are relevant, the potential to find somebody who is not biased should be the main objective
beyond all.

Many variables in procedure, jury selection. Police as defendants have a built in defense mechanisms simply by default.
People think they would be doing something unlawful, wrong, unpatriotic, becoming fearful, by simply voting a guilty verdict
against a defendant police officer disregarding the DAs drama sessions when they know what wrong and right should be by
almost any profession. Reality is many/most jury trials are nothing more than a drawn out drama.
Walter Fubberwot - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 03:27:27 EST ID:T+nMx2l2 No.393102 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>lawyers from both sides have to agree on all 12, though, right?

The 12 jurors should be acceptable to both sides. Say a criminal trial against an armed robbery defendant, had some guy as a potential juror somewhat disregarding a direct question saying, I have the utmost respect for the police,
what they go through on a day to day basis and the justice system
and will do my duty if selected.

Instantly not suited for jury selection right off the bat. It is somewhat hilarious.
But also sad because no matter what, these like minded people 'will' side with the police no matter what, even it the defendant is obviously innocent without any doubt.

The DA if responsible, not reckless will drop this person without any hesitation.
The judge 'generally' has to agree to drop people from the pool or agree to have them for consideration beyond this. But bot the prosecution and defense have to agree for a potential juror to be considered. It's not a one part process either in
choosing from a jury pool to the final selection. Things can change in an instant
where what was an acceptable juror may have some conflicts of interests, lied.
Virtually anything.
Clara Billychere - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 05:35:20 EST ID:glUT7SYB No.393105 Ignore Report Quick Reply
As a Dutch guy I've been wondering that shit ever since I found out Americans let fucking random retards from the streets decide things in court.

It might have been a cool idea in the fucking early modern period when people still ran around with fucking rapiers and smallswords but fuck off with that mongoloid caveman shit today.

A full English Brexit by Shitting Cladgecocke - Tue, 30 May 2017 12:38:49 EST ID:RECqzvsy No.392901 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1496162329407.jpg -(79597B / 77.73KB, 340x425) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 79597
The Financial Times decided to look into the nitty and gritty:
>After Brexit: Let the haggling over treaties begin
FT research reveals that at least 759 agreements with 168 countries must be renegotiated just for the UK to stand still
>In the early 1970s the Queen’s Messengers delivered a historic parcel from London to Brussels, stuffed with enough documents to fill a tea-chest.

Since the 15th century these diplomatic couriers have carried the affairs of state. This time the delivery included scores of treaties, all bearing Royal Arms, which stretched back decades and traced the UK’s commercial arteries around the world. The arrangements were largely to be subsumed by the European Community when Britain joined its trade bloc; this was, in paper form, part of a handover of power.

Forty-six years on, when Britain leaves the EU in 2019, the UK stands to lose far more than it brought over to Brussels that day. The treaty chest has swollen into a small archive of EU agreements, running to hundreds of thousands of pages and spanning 168 non-EU countries. Within them are covered almost every external function of a modern economy, from flying planes to America and trading sows with Iceland to fishing in far-flung seas.

On Brexit day, that will all fall away. By law Britain will overnight be excluded from those EU arrangements with “third countries”, entering the equivalent of a legal void in key parts of its external commercial relations. Some British officials are even peering into the pre-1973 chest again to see whether some seemingly obsolete treaties might gain a new lease of life from a disorderly Brexit. “It is dusty in there,” jokes one Whitehall official.
>It poses a formidable and little-understood challenge for Britain’s prime minister after the June 8 election. While Brexit is often cast as an affair between Brussels and London, in practice Britain’s exit will open more than 750 separate time-pressured mini-negotiations worldwide, according to Financial Times research. And there are no obvious shortcuts: even a basic transition after 2019 requires not just EU-UK approval, but the deal-by-deal authorisation of every third country involved.

“The nearest precedent you can think of is a cessation of a country — you are almost starting from scratch,” says Andrew Hood, a former UK government lawyer now at Dechert. “It will be a very difficult, iterative process.”
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Shitting Cladgecocke - Tue, 30 May 2017 12:39:45 EST ID:RECqzvsy No.392902 Ignore Report Quick Reply
All the agreements must be sifted, creating a huge legal tangle. With Switzerland alone there are 49 accords, while there are 44 with the US and 38 with Norway. Even in potentially consequential areas, some countries are barely aware of Brexit implications. When asked by the FT about a specific customs agreement, one sanguine Indian diplomat first denied it existed, then said it would not matter anyway: “I’m sure people have forgotten it.”

“The logistics are terrifying, even just to go through these commitments and treaties and scope them out,” says Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, a former trade official for Sweden and the EU now at the European Centre for International Political Economy. “Do you want revisions? Do they? Do you go there? How many visits to Chile will this take? That’s a massive logistical operation in itself.
>“There will be a lot of countries with a beef with the EU or the UK and will see this as a golden opportunity to bring up a nuisance issue. They might not get anything, but they have to try,” he adds. “There will probably be an accident in areas you cannot predict.”


Most prominent — and economically significant — are the trade deals. Liam Fox, the UK trade secretary, has promised “zero disruption” by securing transition agreements to continue old trading terms post-Brexit. Britain will in effect repurpose its EU inheritance, re-activating the existing free-trade deals, Mr Fox says. “It is hardly a picture of splendid isolation,” he told parliament this year.

For the most part there is a shared interest in continuing arrangements, since many nations will not want to lose preferential access terms to the UK. Some bigger economies see Brexit as “a window of opportunity”, in the words of one ambassador to the EU. Mr Fox has started preliminary discussions with a dozen-plus countries that want to further liberalise their existing arrangements; South Korea, Switzerland and Norway fall into this category.

“We’d like the best possible terms for our fish. There is a complex web of tariff quotas and red tape, and we’d like to reduce that,” says Oda Helen Sletnes, Norway’s ambassador to the EU. But in a nod to the difficulty of negotiating this while Brexit terms are still uncertain, she added that fisheries discussions would “be complicated by three-way discussions between EU-Norway-UK”. In other words, this is not a straightforward trade-off but a three-dimensional game.

Other countries may be less impressed by the disruption caused, especially on WTO terms. There will need to be give and take. New Zealand, for instance, wants its current quota of lamb sales to the EU to be preserved after Brexit, even though the size of the market will shrink. On top of that, it wants an additional quota for the UK so it can make up for the impact Brexit will have on its flexibility in making sales.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Shitting Cladgecocke - Tue, 30 May 2017 12:40:16 EST ID:RECqzvsy No.392903 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>The timing is tight. The US needs to know the UK’s arrangements with the EU before it can commit, and that may not be clear until late 2018.

“I don’t think there are many precedents for doing so many agreements so quickly. Airlines load schedules months in advance,” says Mr Byerly. “It is not as if you can wait until March 2019 to see what the regime will be. You probably need clarity by the early summer or spring of 2018.”

It puts tremendous strain on Whitehall. In the months after the Brexit vote, Britain had just three people dedicated to negotiating aviation agreements. The FT estimates they will need to renegotiate 17 existing EU agreements with third countries, as well as around 40 UK bilateral deals that include EU clauses. This may need to be done in the space of a few months, once the EU-UK terms are clear and Britain decides how much of its aviation regulation will be repatriated.

For Mr Chizhov, the potential for bureaucratic overload has echoes of another time and place — Soviet Russia. “Brexit means Brexit is a very interesting expression,” says the Russian ambassador, referring to Prime Minister Theresa May’s mantra on exit. “It reminds me of Leonid Brezhnev saying, ‘the economy should be economical’.”

>Trading places: Too many deals, too few negotiators

The task of negotiating new free-trade deals and maintaining existing ones will require a huge amount of money and manpower from Whitehall.

The UK Trade Policy Observatory, an independent think-tank, says Britain will “in essence be taking on the same trade policy task as [the EU’s department for] trade”. Given the nature of Brexit negotiations — high stakes, short timeframes — UKTPO says the UK “could need twice as many [negotiators] on its side”. This would mean 700 front-line negotiators.

Whitehall’s Trade Policy Group, which will lead the negotiations, employs 300 people but very few have experience of hammering out trade deals.

WTF is wrong with Trumpkins? by George Woddlehudge - Wed, 24 May 2017 16:03:36 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.392552 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1495656216608.jpg -(44510B / 43.47KB, 485x361) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 44510
So, I like to drink regularly at this local bar. Cool bar. Friends with the staff and other regulars. I really like it.

One rule though...NO POLITICS AT THE BAR. That is the rule.

Anywho, this Trumpkin comes in the other night, and immediately singles out this guy sitting at the end of the bar. Now, I know this guy a bit and he is an out gay man. And it is pretty obvious unless your gaydar has utterly failed.

Trumpkin gets this guy in his sights, and out of the blue starts picking a fight with the guy about if he likes Trump or not. Amazingly, a gay man living in New England DIDN'T LIKE TRUMP! Shocking...I know....

Anyways, Trumpkin is trying to obviously start shit, and the bartender tries to defuse things. She is all, "no politics at the bar please..." Trumpkin mumbles something and goes out for a smoke.

10 minutes later he rages back in just peppering Gay Guy At End Of Bar (Let's call him...Gaybe for short,) with questions. Top among them was, "How can you judge him by what he said once?" and "That is just liberal media lies."

Gaybe is like, "Ummm...didn't this end?" Trumpkin just starts ramping up faster and faster and getting all agitated. At this point most of the bar was interested to see how this would end. Anyways, the Trumpkin was politely ejected in the end, but not before he ended up screaming at everyone.

A couple of observations that fucking baffle me...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
66 posts and 16 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
James Greenwell - Mon, 29 May 2017 03:40:20 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.392822 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's just a defense mechanism.
Jarvis Fogglegold - Mon, 29 May 2017 03:54:18 EST ID:LdbqqAMo No.392823 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Now I know why this board is under academia
Sophie Sibbertedge - Mon, 29 May 2017 06:30:41 EST ID:EkRX+tDd No.392829 Ignore Report Quick Reply

stupid is as stupid does. life is like a box of multiculturalism, you know exactly what youre gonna get.
Jarvis Fogglegold - Mon, 29 May 2017 14:53:13 EST ID:LdbqqAMo No.392840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Please please stop using Forest Gump quotes. It isn't at all witty or clever, it just makes you seem as dumb as Forest Gump.
Isabella Pushham - Mon, 29 May 2017 20:28:43 EST ID:EkRX+tDd No.392867 Ignore Report Quick Reply

i am not a smart man. but i know what love is.

<<Last Pages
0 1 2 3
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.