That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Also a good twenty year sketch.Isgrimnur wrote:He is, but twenty years is a good post-WWII stretch.tgb wrote:Is he still dead?Isgrimnur wrote:
Francisco Franco ruled until 1975.
I'm waiting for the election before I become too critical. I'm still hoping for a surprise drubbing. We'll see.Smoove_B wrote:The fact that he's polling higher than 5% reflects more on the American public than anything else at this point. It's unthinkable.Blackhawk wrote:He might have thought twice about the risks/rewards of his ploy.
Duterte looks to be in the running.malchior wrote:For the nitpicky - drop in the word Democratically elected then.
In a rambling speech on his arrival in Davao City after a visit to Vietnam, Duterte told reporters that he had been "portrayed to be a cousin of Hitler" by critics.
Noting that Hitler had murdered millions of Jews, Duterte said: "There are three million drug addicts (in the Philippines). I'd be happy to slaughter them.
"If Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have...," he said, pausing and pointing to himself.
"You know my victims. I would like (them) to be all criminals to finish the problem of my country and save the next generation from perdition."
Duterte was voted to power in a May election on the back of a vow to end drugs and corruption in the country of 100 million people. He took office on June 30 and over 3,100 people have been killed since then, mostly alleged drug users and dealers, in police operations and in vigilante killings.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to label him "western world", however.Max Peck wrote:Duterte looks to be in the running.
You should have been watching Judge Judy.Grifman wrote:You can take the Fifth Amendment in a civil case? Learn something new every day. Law and Order never taught me that!
I'm thinking about a year from now when he's lost and all of his closet skeletons are now in the hands of various agencies and courts. Plus, his brand name may currently be at an all time high, but I have a feeling that when President Clinton V2.0 takes the oath, all of his current supporters will be blaming him for all of their woes.Smoove_B wrote:The fact that he's polling higher than 5% reflects more on the American public than anything else at this point. It's unthinkable.Blackhawk wrote:He might have thought twice about the risks/rewards of his ploy.
Fair enough.Isgrimnur wrote:I think you'd be hard-pressed to label him "western world", however.Max Peck wrote:Duterte looks to be in the running.
You might be on to something. He ego could be so large (it's the largest) that he figured being able to get away with whatever financial/accounting nonsense he's be doing for decades, the gravy-train would continue (and grow) after running for President. However, he never realized the microscope he'd be put under and/or he believed he's still smarter than the investigators because he's been getting away with it for so long. I guess a that potentially makes him a little like a serial killer.Blackhawk wrote:I'm thinking about a year from now when he's lost and all of his closet skeletons are now in the hands of various agencies and courts. Plus, his brand name may currently be at an all time high, but I have a feeling that when President Clinton V2.0 takes the oath, all of his current supporters will be blaming him for all of their woes.
+1malchior wrote:I tend to believe as you do but think it is far more multivariate. For example, I don't think you can discount complete weariness for what she represents. And she has been a very good soldier for the Corporate state - so it isn't all that unfair. There are other factors but while I am sure someone will craft some tidy narrative eventually - it isn't a simple problem. There has been a storm brewing for decades and Drumpf is likely a direct outcome of it.
There are legitimate concerns about Clinton, especially if her politics and yours don't jibe. The sheer hatred and antipathy she receives cannot be based solely on these differences though, because she's as average/vanilla (in terms of outlandish policies) as you can get. Does she have even one position that is not a mainstream position? Not that I know of.malchior wrote:I tend to believe as you do but think it is far more multivariate. For example, I don't think you can discount complete weariness for what she represents. And she has been a very good soldier for the Corporate state - so it isn't all that unfair. There are other factors but while I am sure someone will craft some tidy narrative eventually - it isn't a simple problem. There has been a storm brewing for decades and Drumpf is likely a direct outcome of it.
Fair enough. Although even rudimentary examination shows that Drumpf is not only not a conservative, or a Republican, but also not controlled by the Republican party. He's chaos in the form of russian roulette, except there's only 1 bullet missing instead of five.El Guapo wrote:Also for the most part it is totally logical to vote based on the party rather than the individual. Especially these days 90% of what you get policy-wise is driven by the party affiliation, with slight tweaks for what the individual candidate prioritizes. It's just that this year one of the candidates is American Hitler, which is a reality that the country / the media has had trouble adjusting to.
Racist, sexist uncles vote as well. And sometimes, they host dinner.GreenGoo wrote:But are you willing to bring in your racist, sexist uncle to eat at your table every night and run your finances for you? That seems like a pretty extreme solution to boredom or fatigue with the status quo.
Unthinkable is a good word. So is sad. And pathetic. Shameful, even.Smoove_B wrote:The fact that he's polling higher than 5% reflects more on the American public than anything else at this point. It's unthinkable.Blackhawk wrote:He might have thought twice about the risks/rewards of his ploy.
I'll make the popcorn.
South Park is doing a season long story arc that hilariously covers that using Garrison as the Trump stand in:tgb wrote:Chuck Todd brought up a good point this morning.
There's an old maxim in sales. People buy for emotional reasons, not logical. Trump connects with a segment of the country on a visceral level, which is why he can get away with murder and not lose support.
Wonky Hillary is appealing to minds and not hearts.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Randy: Okay. What the [bleep] is wrong with you people?! I just saw a new poll that says more and more of you are thinking about voting for that douche!
Stephen: Some of us are. A lot of people like what he has to say, all right?
Randy: You’re telling me that after that debate, you still want to vote for that guy?
Stephen: More than ever. Yep.
Randy: Did you see the same debates I saw?
Stephen: Don’t you get it, Randy? There's people in this country who are sick and tired. Tired of hearing all the rhetoric. Tired of Washington failing us while they pat their own backs. Finally, someone comes along who says what he feels. That's why people like him. Because, say what you want, at least he doesn't sound like another politician.
Mr. Garrison: America, please listen to me. I have no idea how to be president. I am a complete jackass and I have made a giant mistake here. [Cheering continues] No, no, no, no. No, no, no, no. Why are you clapping? I am not a good person for the White House. I am not a good person period!
Man: Finally, someone who doesn't talk like a politician!
Star Trek has always offered a positive vision of the future, a vision of hope and optimism, and most importantly, a vision of inclusion, where people of all races are accorded equal respect and dignity, where individual beliefs and lifestyles are respected so long as they pose no threat to others. We cannot turn our backs on what is happening in the upcoming election. Never has there been a presidential candidate who stands in such complete opposition to the ideals of the Star Trek universe as Donald Trump. His election would take this country backward, perhaps disastrously. We need to elect a president who will move this country forward into the kind of future we all dream of: where personal differences are understood and accepted, where science overrules superstition, where people work together instead of against each other.
The resolution of conflicts on Star Trek was never easy. Don’t remain aloof –vote! We have heard people say they will vote Green or Libertarian or not at all because the two major candidates are equally flawed. That is both illogical and inaccurate. Either Secretary Clinton or Mr. Trump will occupy the White House. One is an amateur with a contemptuous ignorance of national laws and international realities, while the other has devoted her life to public service, and has deep and valuable experience with the proven ability to work with Congress to pass desperately needed legislation. If, as some say, the government is broken, a protest vote will not fix it.
Have you just turned 18? Have you moved? Have you never voted before? Some states have early registration (early October) and/or absentee ballots. You can’t vote if you are not registered. So make it so. Go to (rock the vote), a non-profit, non-partisan organization, and fulfill your civic duty. Because, damn it, you are a citizen of the USA, with an obligation to take part in our democracy! Do this not merely for yourself but for all the generations that follow. Vote for a future of enlightenment and inclusion, a future that will someday lead us to the stars.
Endorsed by:
When did Rip become a South Park writer?hepcat wrote:South Park is doing a season long story arc that hilariously covers that using Garrison as the Trump stand in:tgb wrote:Chuck Todd brought up a good point this morning.
There's an old maxim in sales. People buy for emotional reasons, not logical. Trump connects with a segment of the country on a visceral level, which is why he can get away with murder and not lose support.
Wonky Hillary is appealing to minds and not hearts.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Randy: Okay. What the [bleep] is wrong with you people?! I just saw a new poll that says more and more of you are thinking about voting for that douche!
Stephen: Some of us are. A lot of people like what he has to say, all right?
Randy: You’re telling me that after that debate, you still want to vote for that guy?
Stephen: More than ever. Yep.
Randy: Did you see the same debates I saw?
Stephen: Don’t you get it, Randy? There's people in this country who are sick and tired. Tired of hearing all the rhetoric. Tired of Washington failing us while they pat their own backs. Finally, someone comes along who says what he feels. That's why people like him. Because, say what you want, at least he doesn't sound like another politician.
Mr. Garrison: America, please listen to me. I have no idea how to be president. I am a complete jackass and I have made a giant mistake here. [Cheering continues] No, no, no, no. No, no, no, no. Why are you clapping? I am not a good person for the White House. I am not a good person period!
Man: Finally, someone who doesn't talk like a politician!
William Shatner is conspicuously absent.tgb wrote:Awesome.
In yet another attempt to prove that he’s an actual human being — he “auditioned” for “The Simpsons” last month — Texas Senator and Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz spoke at strange length about his affinity for Captain Kirk.
Ana Marie Cox noted that Cruz is a well-known fan of “Star Trek,” and asked him whether he preferred the original series’ Captain Kirk, played by William Shatner, or Jean-Luc Picard of “The Next Generation,” played by Patrick Stewart. “Absolutely James Tiberius Kirk,” he replied.
He then proceeded to “do a little psychoanalysis,” saying that “f you look at ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation,’ it basically split James T. Kirk into two people. Picard was Kirk’s rational side, and William Riker was his passionate side. I prefer a complete captain. To be effective, you need both heart and mind.”
Cruz added that Kirk was “working class” and a “passionate fighter for justice,” whereas Picard was an “aristocrat” and “cerebral philosopher,” which is why — to his mind — “it is quite likely that Kirk is a Republican and Picard is a Democrat.”
Upon learning that the iconic character he played had been outed as a member of the Grand Old Party, William Shatner took to Twitter to reply:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/WilliamShatner/stat ... 4942433280[/tweet]
William Shatner is conspicuously Canadian, they don't countKraken wrote:William Shatner is conspicuously absent.tgb wrote:Awesome.
There are even some non-Humans (and even non-Federation citizens) on that list.Jeff V wrote:Pretty sure there's a number of non-Americans on that list though, FWIW.
Poppycock! I demand to see his birth certificate!Grifman wrote:William Shatner is conspicuously Canadian, they don't countKraken wrote:William Shatner is conspicuously absent.tgb wrote:Awesome.
malchior wrote:Funny - I always like to talk about the future in terms of Star Trek. At present I tend to allude the future looks a whole lot less like the United Federation of Planets and a lot more like Elysium or Gattaca as the world is presently angled. Putting aside all the Star Trek timelines around WW3 and eugenics.
IIRC Nicole deBoer is as well, and I believe Marina Sirtis is English, although she might have been assimilated by the American borg.Grifman wrote:William Shatner is conspicuously Canadian, they don't countKraken wrote:William Shatner is conspicuously absent.tgb wrote:Awesome.
Bernie's unexpected strength in the primaries showed the depth of anti-establishment sentiment even among Democrats and liberals. I said then that nominating Clinton (the consummate insider) would be a mistake for that reason, and I believe it's a large part of why she can't put Trump away despite his antics. All the endorsements in the world won't help her overcome that, and indeed only reinforce it.Carpet_pissr wrote:+1malchior wrote:I tend to believe as you do but think it is far more multivariate. For example, I don't think you can discount complete weariness for what she represents. And she has been a very good soldier for the Corporate state - so it isn't all that unfair. There are other factors but while I am sure someone will craft some tidy narrative eventually - it isn't a simple problem. There has been a storm brewing for decades and Drumpf is likely a direct outcome of it.
Fixed that for you. And I think much of it had more to do with Clinton's image than with being anti-establishment. The same people love Obama (who is, by his very position, establishment)Kraken wrote:Carpet_pissr wrote: Bernie's unexpected strength in the primaries showed the depth of anti-establishment sentiment even among Democratic-leaning independents.