Home Decorator

Rabbi Altmann and his secretary were sitting in a coffeehouse in Berlin in 1935. “Herr Altmann,” said his secretary, “I notice you’re reading Der Stürmer! I can’t understand why. A Nazi libel sheet! Are you some kind of masochist, or, God forbid, a self-hating Jew ?”

“On the contrary, Frau Epstein. When I used to read the Jewish papers, all I learned about were pogroms, riots in Palestine, and assimilation in America. But now that I read Der Stürmer, I see so much more: that the Jews control all the banks, that we dominate in the arts, and that we’re on the verge of taking over the entire world. You know – it makes me feel a whole lot better!”

@comrade_Comrade Too fucking good.

@comrade_Comrade Absolutely brilliant. Well done!

@comrade_Comrade I'm amazed that this is the most liked comment and only has one dislike. Not because it's a bad comment, but all the other most liked comments have so many dislikes, along with likes!

'@TheHappyAmerican' it's a good joke and it isn't a political statement, there isn't much to disagree with.

@comrade_Comrade jokes are the only thing that can save us now, with all the confusion and political tension in the world

'@Baconcheesewheel' humor is a coping mechanism, probably the only thing it can save anyone from is an exit bag.

@comrade_Comrade But it is a political statement... Just a very good and subtle one.

'@froggyrules' it can be read in a couple of ways, so at least it's not definite. At least it's not on the nose and has merit outside this specific context. Always glad when joke is so well received.

@comrade_Comrade It's a very astute political statement. And it didn't get downvotes because it went wooosh! above the heads of all the downvoters.

@comrade_Comrade It's no surprise every socialist POS who eats this phony "Russia collusion" BS as an excuse to feel good about being hateful bigoted self-entitled fascist hypocrites also believe this anti-semitic "jews control the media" BS. Meanwhile fat SJW turds like Rob Reiner brainlessly fart "bawww anti-semite" while supporting the Sharia-loving BDS movement in a pathetic pretentious attempt to have it both ways.

@Abe Wow. First, I've never seen such Hypocrisy in a single comment. Second, have you ever seen a political compass? Liberalism and Facism are on different sides of the spectrum. Rob Reiner is a liberal, not a socialist. Liberals are not Socialists. And you confuse Socialism and Communism. Third, Trump explicitly said recieving something from a foreign power to help in an election isn't collusion (which it is). Please learn facts next time you post.

Remember when SatW was about cultural quirks around the world, instead of Humon fumbling through political ideology that she barely understands?
I do.

@AmericaTheBigBoned And suddenly, the comment icons aren't funny anymore.

@AmericaTheBigBoned

I remember when the comment section wasn't chock-full of Trump-bots complaining about their dear leader being ridiculed for being a buffoon - those where the days...

But hey - maybe he'll resign since being president is so hard or be impeached or something and we could all be happy again?

@Nisse_Hult If he resigns you get President Pence.

As someone who lives in Indiana, YOU DO NOT WANT PRESIDENT PENCE.

Nor am I a Trump Bot. But a cultural Dane fumbling with American politics, badly, is as unfunny as an American would be, fumbling with Danish politics.

@MichaelZWilliamson

Actually I'd be just fine with Pence compared to Trump.

Of course he'd be a catastrophe for the US internally, but at least he'd be a more stable leader on the world stage.

Trump's a complete idiot that could actually do anything - including launch nukes.
Pence is at least smart enough to realize he's not actually the smartest person in the world and he'd listen to the professionals in the intelligence community and in the armed forces.

@Nisse_Hult Trump is a genius in that respect he's set himself up so that the person who would take his place is so henious no one will make a move against him.

@Hyporia Isn't that a Republican tradition though? Nixon/Agnew, Reagan/Bush sr., Bush sr./Quayle, Bush jr./Cheyney... it's an insurance policy of sorts!

'@danp0909' Nixon was a democrat... Most sniveling warmongers actually were.

@Nephandus Umm, not sure if you mean that metaphorically, but he did in fact run as a registered Republican.

@Nisse_Hult to be honest, he picked the perfect vice for his position. mike pence is so anti gay that it's honestly hilarious, and this is coming from someone who eats the peen for breakfast

@cutiepyro

Well, as I said in my earlier comment I'd actually be fine with Pence.

Of course he'd be terrible for the US - but at least the rest of the world would be a lot safer.

As I wrote 4 months ago:

"Trump's a complete idiot that could actually do anything - including launch nukes.
Pence is at least smart enough to realize he's not actually the smartest person in the world and he'd listen to the professionals in the intelligence community and in the armed forces. "

And that was way before Trump started threatening "fire and fury" regarding North Korea...

On another note - I didn't get the reference "and this is coming from someone who eats the peen for breakfast"?
Care to enlighten me as to the meaning of that?

@Nisse_Hult peen is slang for penis, meaning i'm gay

@cutiepyro

Aha, OK.
I've never heard that slang before, but that makes sense then. :-)

@Nisse_Hult yeah it's a pretty dumb slang

@cutiepyro

Not dumber then any other slang I think?
If you know the word you do and as long as people understands you it's working.
Me not understanding you isn't a problem - non-native speakers can't really be expected to know a lot of slang words/phrases.

@AmericaTheBigBoned aw, don't you just hate it when a person happens to use their talent to express their views? Oh, wait, that's also what politicians, writers, and just about everyone does.

@Edelstein9 Well, as a writer, I'd like to point out my mere mid-sized state has a bigger GDP and more productive capability than Denmark. ;) And much lower taxes.

@MichaelZWilliamson

Yeah well it also doesn't have universal healthcare and a whole lot of other things civilized society does have.
It also probably has a whole lot more incarcerated people and a hell of a lot more crime, drugs and gun violence then Denmark - since the US in general has that.
But the taxes are lower so I guess life is just perfect since taxes are the only thing that matter in life - right?

@MichaelZWilliamson And how, exactly, is that related to this?

@MichaelZWilliamson Indiana?
Indiana GDP per capita: 45,136 USD Source: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/indiana/
Denmark GDP per capita: 60000.54 USD Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/gdp-per-capita

@Edelstein9
No, I hate it when a comedian stops making jokes and starts making political commentary.
The same way I would hate if a chef stopped making food and instead started trying to teach me how to raise cattle: they aren't qualified to do it, and I'm not interested in it.

@AmericaTheBigBoned Yes, I am a bit embarrassed about her. But you have to understand, the only news that make it across the pond for old people like her, is the Liberal talk... sorry, shrieking points. So she acts from what she believes is true.

@AmericaTheBigBoned Yeah, what a pity that she has it right, despite all that fumbling around. :: snicker ::

@seanm
Except there's been literally no evidence of Russian collusion in the elections. Only conjecture, lies, and false flags.

@AmericaTheBigBoned @Nisse_Hult
I remember when everyone didn't take the jokes so seriously and just enjoyed the fun comics.

@ImTheDevilDog

I don't know why you tagged me with this comment?

I don't have a problem with the comic or with Humon expressing her opinion - as I said in my comment to AmericaTheBigBoned above, who is the one actually complaining here.

@Nisse_Hult oh, I'm sorry that I tagged you in this comment. I agree with your genral stance. But you were part of the conversation which is the only reason I tagged you.

@ImTheDevilDog
Well that ends when the comics stop being jokes and instead just become political commentary.

@AmericaTheBigBoned i haven't remembered anything since woodstock

To play devil's advocate, nothing has been proven beyond Trump staffers improperly talking with Russian officials during the campaign and embarrassing emails stolen and leaked. While the email hack was probably done by Russian citizens, there's no way of knowing if it was state-sponsored or private Russian citizens. Also, there was an intrusion into voting systems in a few states prior to the election, but they only stole one official's password and username, which was quickly changed. There was no evidence before or after the election of the system compromised. And again, no evidence whether it was state-sponsored or independent criminals.

Also, also, there was lots of spreading fake news and malicious gossip, but the Internet was saturated with that sort of thing and whether Russia was willfully engaging in it any more than any other group is questionable.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/01/russia-and-its-influence-presidential-election/

All that being said, Trump is still a disgusting, lying, self-serving pig of a man who represents everything wrong with modern America.

@Dan The thing with the voting systems may seem innocuous, but they could have taken the voter rolls, allowing for more precise targeting of voters, i.e. spamming very liberal Democrats with anti-Clinton stories. Admittedly, it is hard to prove any of this stuff, though.

However, the activity of the Trump administration, not to mention the Republican-led investigations, aren't all that reassuring. A lot of, "move along, nothing to see here," going on.

@Apep727 It HAS been proven that Russian based spambots were posting fake anti-Hillary stories on message groups and forums run by pro-Bernie groups.

@Dan Even the guys who investigated Nixon are going, "Yeah...there's a coverup going on." https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-03-21/nixon-counsel-during-watergate-says-trump-administration-showing-how-damn-guilty-they-are & http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324940-nixon-wh-counsel-during-watergate-trump-wh-in-cover-up-mode (sources)

So that is something to watch. One of my facepalm moments of the era though, was Bush's former intelligence officials composing this letter: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/08/us/politics/national-security-letter-trump.html?_r=0 Not quite related, just more it makes you wonder. You might agree with them.

Until this election, the GOP had been due for a split along ideological lines, between more moderate conservationism and right-wing conservatism (the "alt-right" supremacist groups). The more moderate GOP didn't like him--though the current GOP seems to quite so, and he's become their new face and identity. That is what we're seeing today, on top of all this. I'm hoping it's like a disgusting, gassy burp, and they return to normal sometime soon.

@Dan That is actually very misleading.

For starters we are in an information asymmetrical position where officially there is not much information but there are many organizations and people who investigate and claim/act like they have allot of evidence. While its hard for an average person to know due to this most experts seams to agree on most of these points at least on the basic level.

That Politifact article is also very old by Trump standard so allot of information has come out since.

Anyone still believing that the US is being run from the Kremlin has clearly not been watching the news for the past month. Even before the sarin attack in Syria and Trump's reaction, it was clear that the Russian government officials and many Russians were at the mercy of Trump. They were happy when Trump got elected, but not because they can now manipulate the United States and the Western; they wanted Trump because he "promised" to get rid of the sanctions the US laid on Russia's elite after the Crimea annexation and let Putin do whatever he pleases in Ukraine and Syria. They did not give a rat's hole about what was going on in the US. I don't care what your position on Russia's involvement in the US election is, but only a dumbass would believe that Trump is Putin's puppet.

Coming back to April 2017, not only has Trump done nothing with regard to the sanctions, he made a U-turn against Putin and gave him the signal that he was not going to f*** with him in foreign policy. Trump plays by his own rules and doesn't care what Putin says. Quite frankly, this is the first time I am disappointed with the comic strip for the week. Maybe I would have cut some slack earlier in the year, but now it just doesn't seem appropriate. Research needs to be done if you're going to make a comic about it.

@StuckovertheAtlantic Sadly our gracious host is more or less at the mercy of such narratives. I gave up taking her seriously when it comes to political discussion long ago.

@Synapse Honestly, I just cut her some slack with North American politics. She's going to get an off version, much like how those of us in North America would get an off, not full picture of politics in Scandinavia

Mind, I also think it would be better if she just didn't touch politics unless she knew 100% what was going on. It's a nasty enough minefield as it is when it's your own country or the country next to you

@StuckovertheAtlantic News wont change those believers minds. They follow simple logic that if Russia influenced US elections, that means that Trump is in Putin's pocket. They refuse to think that Putin simply thought that Trump was better than Clinton for him...

@StuckovertheAtlantic Spoken like a true 19 year old with a myopic grasp on international relations.

@mekkababble In what way is my grasp on international relations myopic? No, please, do tell me what I am missing out on. I'd like to be enlightened, perhaps I don't know something?

@StuckovertheAtlantic you don't know ANYTHING!! Russia tried to influence the election, and it worked. They got trump elected. I don't know if you live under a rock, but MANY trump officials are under investigation of ties to Russia, and our current Secretary of State was awarded the medal of friendship by Russia, the highest award a non Russian civilian can get.

@Baconcheesewheel

So, listen. I'm not a Trump supporter. Hate the guy, everything he stands for, and I'm tied to this crashing meteor whether I like it or not.

But whether or not Russia influenced the election (they probably did, albeit in ways that I think one dedicated whistle-blower could easily match or exceed), the point that @StuckovertheAtlantic is making is that the US's current foreign relations with Russia are not the close ties that were expected immediately preceding inauguration. They, like many Americans, backed Trump on campaign promises that he did not follow up on. Jokes about the Kremlin maintaining any sort of control over Trump's actions are both overused at this point and increasingly seem to be inaccurate given the international situation in Crimea and Syria.

Does the Secretary of State have the medal of friendship? Yes. Has he given Russia the main things that they want? No. International politics are messy and convoluted, but it's fairly clear at this point that we're not a puppet state.

Kindly avoid saying that people don't know anything when they've clearly done more independent research into the matter than you have, and bear in mind that mass media is not necessarily giving the full picture at any given time.

@FableW well yes, you are right. But, considering everything that his campaign has gone through on the trail and the ilegal activitys of members of the White House, we need to do more research into the subject. This is a messy topic, and there have been things on both sides that don't make seance. We need more research, and also it would help to have truth serum. ;)

@StuckovertheAtlantic Hey. Humon isn't infallible. As a Norwegian I must say she has that typical Danish imperialistic view of us here in Norway that even a Japanese competition managed to avoid. So to show her ignorance and mostly emotions about US politics in this one pic strip, isn't that bad.

I am pretty sure we are all like Sister America at this point.

@unconventionalLoli I always hoped Sister America would be a bigger role in the comics. America has two very different stereotypes and she helps with that duality.

@unconventionalLoli If she's supposed to be the Democrats and he is obviously Trump, she should be stuffing her bra with all the money she got from Russia for giving them one fifth of the US uranium... ;)

So, no. Not all are like her. And I bet most doesn't even want to do such things.

@Ferrari27 Fair Point.

Somewhere two men sit in a bar.

Man 1: You ever remember when that comment section of Scandinavia and the World was not full of people who had a hard time accepting that Humon can do whatever she wants with her own webcomic?

Man 2: Maybe? I was beginning to think that was simply all a dream.

Man 1: I can understand that. It's hard to remember what was actually amusing about something when it is full of more complaining and whining than a Tumblr meltdown.

@EricTheRedAndWhite Maybe you moderators should step in and block obvious Trumpbots, Putinbots and other shills.

Jeez, all this political shit and here I am, wondering why Sister America's boobs look smaller.

@Bloden I mean, it's a concern I have as well.

@Bloden - She's deflating? idk but I noticed it too. Are we bad people? xD

@Mecharic I really just wanted to say yes, yes your bad people... but instead I opened another tab too go through all the comics with sister America (obviously to check her boobs) and yeh yous are right, they have definitely shrunk

@Mecharic We are, in fact, terrible people.

@Bloden They were implants, so she probably got them taken out.

@Bloden Because she's gotten smarter I guess.

@Bloden Seeing your pic, I am sure you agree with me that kneading is needed. It embiggens.

Don't tell me humon have bitten into the whole "Russian election tampering hoax"
I know it can be hard for these to the left of Lenin to understand that a majority wanted a showman over a old hag.
The real problem is that Trump, and old friend of WWE founder Vince McMahon was only taking the right for a ride.
There is no way to save America, though reform.
As Mark Twain used to say; "If Voting Made Any Difference, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It"

@rphb
Well, to be fair, Hillary did win the popular vote.

'@Iateapenguin'
No one won the popular vote, as no single candidate got an absolute majority. If we can point at any winner in the popular vote it would be Gary Johnson.
But Trump won an overwhelming victory where it counted in the US electoral system.

I am all for a reform of the electoral system, but the first rule of any reform should be that any candidate needs to win an absolute majority in order to win, it is hard to imagine a system more unfair then one where the winner becomes the one with the biggest plurality regardless of how big the majority that voted against them were.

@rphb

That's not how the popular vote works at all.

The popular vote doesn't have to be a set percentage of the vote or a majority - it's just the person who get's the most votes or a plurality of the vote.

And Clinton clearly did that so yes - she won the popular vote.

Regarding your opinions on voting reform they make no sense what so ever.

Just because a majority might not have voted for one particular candidate it doesn't mean they have anything in common with each other more then their choice to not vote for that candidate and elections are not about deciding who didn't win but who did.

In your version there would hardly ever be a winner in most elections in democratic countries around the world since actual majority rule is rather rare.

Almost all elections would just end up undecided as a majority of the voters couldn't agree on one which candidate or party to support.

That's an idiotic proposal that would make most countries ungovernable quite frankly.

'@Nisse'_Hult
Okay art thy flag set correctly, because it says that thou art from Sweden despite being darkened by political correctness (and thereby a much more closed-minded society, afraid to discuss the real problems). Sweden still have the same basic political structure as Denmark, with a party that is elected with proportional representation.
This leads to multiple parties, and these parties then have to go together in a coalition to form a government.
I don’t get how thou think that a system that works in most democracies can’t work.

I know that there can only be one president, but that can be solved in two ways, both by having a second election round like in France, when no single party wins a majority,
And secondly by reducing the president to a mere figurehead, while creation a position of Chancellor, that are accountable to congress as the head of government. They do that in Germany, as an example.

@rphb

"Sweden still have the same basic political structure as Denmark, with a party that is elected with proportional representation.
This leads to multiple parties, and these parties then have to go together in a coalition to form a government.
I don’t get how thou think that a system that works in most democracies can’t work."

Yes, that is how it works NOW - but that's not how you previously said you think it SHOULD work.

You wrote:

"the first rule of any reform should be that any candidate needs to win an absolute majority in order to win, it is hard to imagine a system more unfair then one where the winner becomes the one with the biggest plurality regardless of how big the majority that voted against them were."

Which would mean that in a democracy like Sweden - and I believe Denmark as well - there would not be a government at the moment, since no single party has absolute majority.

What you're suddenly talking about now - parties coming together in a coalition - is the exact opposite of what you wrote before when you demanded absolute majority of a single candidate or party for them to come to power.

'@Nisse'_Hult


That was because I was talking about how to elect a head of state, which is always one person, a government don’t have to be directly related to a head of state. Most system have a distinct separation of the head of state and the head of government.
A head of state needs an absolute majority, a head of government only needs to not have a majority against him in this country’s legislative assembly.
Denmark and Sweden are monarchies, there heads of states are hereditary, so there is no election at all for that post.
In a republic we need to elect the head of state, thus he needs to have an absolute majority behind him.
My favorite republic is Germany, because their president is only a figurehead, it is their head of government the chancellor that have all the real power.

@rphb

Doesn't matter - if the US was run according to you're proposal they wouldn't have a president at all right now since no one won a majority so it's clearly not a workable system you're proposing.

And instituting a second round where only the top two candidates face of is just a bogus way for the winner there to claim he/she got a majority he/she didn't actually deserve on their own merit.

A president elected with 50.1% of the votes cast in that round can easily have actually gotten less votes then a candidate eliminated in the first round if enough voter just ignore that second round when their favorite candidate was eliminated in the first.
And that doesn't give the candidate that finally won more but less democratic legitimacy.

Well actually a lot of countries elect their president without the need of any absolute majority simply because the president lack very much power - that's not just Germany.

But the US will never accept that kind of solution anyway since they want to keep their president internationally powerful but very weak at home.
Now most Americans don't actually understand that's how their system works - by making their president weak in domestic policy - but that's actually the case, which Trumps proves now when he can't get anything done.

'@Nisse'_Hult
It can most certainly be done with a second election round ,that is what they are doing in France right now, but I am sure thou prefer a rothschild banker over a real nationalist, even though that nationalist happen to have a uterus, that seems to be important for your people but only when they are on the left, a women with the right ideas are called a class traitor, or a close eqvivalent.

I don’t mind a president that are strong internationally and weak domestically, that could work well if he was elected in a democratic way like with two election rounds and if ye had another institution to handle domestic affairs.
The reason why having two election rounds works better is because it allows for multiple parties. Imagine for instance the very infamous 1912 election, where Roosevelt split the Republican votes. If the rule was that a run off vote was triggered every time no candidate got 50% of the votes, then Teddy and Woodrow would have faced each other in a run-off.
That very system allows for new parties to challenge old parties and people won’t have to vote strategically, they can vote on who they likes the best. The present system in the US gives completely unprecedented powers to the two dinosaur parties, and no one can ever hope to challenge them by running independent because doing so will just hurt his own cause.
This is not just undemocratic it is anti-democratic.

I suggest that beyond changing the system to mandate a runoff round, to also create the position of chancellor to become head of government.
The chancellor would be required to always have the support of a majority in congress, that itself should be elected proportionally in order to prevent gerrymandering and to give room for new parties.
For instance California have 53 representative in congress, so in order for a new “third party” to gain representation from that state it would only be required to get 1,9% of the votes.
Tell me the truth, what art thy country of origin because I know it is not Sweden, a Swede, even a far leftist Swede would get this.

@rphb

I've actually already answered everything your last post said before - you just don't seem to have read or understood what I actually wrote.

So I won't waste my time repeating myself but just say "see above".

@rphb In the United States (maybe this is different from other countries, I don't know), the popular vote means that more people voted for one person than any other candidate. Hillary won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, which means that she won the popular vote.

'@lbisno1'
But she did not win more votes then all other candidates combined, the reason why she got more votes then Donald Trump was because several millions voted for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and a one guy from Utah got almost a third of the votes.
Ye say she won the popular vote while rendering the popular vote absolutely meaningless with your definition of it.
Macron won "the popular vote" in France in their election the other day, with his capture of a whooping 24% of the total votes (more then any other candidate).
But in the French election system, which is what I think that people that want a reform of the American electoral system are looking for, the rule are that every time no candidate gets an actual majority, the two top contenders proceed to a final round.
In this case Macron (a Justin Trudeau wannabe) with 24% and Le Pen with 21% (what Donald Trump wannabe)

@rphb I don't quite understand how I'm "rendering the popular vote absolutely meaningless with my definition of it". The popular vote is (at least in US presidential elections), in practice, already meaningless.

Like I already said, the popular vote winner refers to the candidate who got more votes than any other candidate, not all other candidates combined. The popular vote means next to nothing in the US presidential election. Everything in the US election is based on an electoral college.

'@lbisno1'
There are two things that are important. Laws and Ethic.
As st. Augustine famouesly said: Lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is not a law)
I assumed that ye (American leftist) used "the popular vote" in order to question the ethical aspect of Trumps win, that he did not deserve to win, because the law that determines the winner, is not in correspondence with Morality, of who ought to be the winner.
The popular vote is rendered meaningless from an ethical point of view, when it only refers to the candidate that won the biggest plurality and not the one that won an actual majority, as there is no good ethical argument for why the candidate with the most votes should win, regardless of how many voted against him.
In France Macron won the popular vote with 24% as I said. That also means that 76% voted against him, should he on that foundation alone be allowed to take the presidency?

That is why I said that the popular vote is meaningless, when it can’t even be used to make an ethical argument.

@rphb
Sorry, what I meant by my comment was: the majority of people didn't vote for Trump; Hillary won more actual votes than he did.

The electoral system is pure shite.

'@Iateapenguin' then we agree on something, I think it would be much better if they switched to something in between of the French and the German system.
I think it is important to retain the federal stucture, but it is completely unfair that one state can be won, by a single candidate.

I did a calculation, and if every state rewarded electoral votes based on the proportion each candidate had, rather then the winner-takes-all, system,
then Trump would have only gotten 264 electoral votes.
Clinton would have gotten 261
Johnson 11
and Jill Stein and Evan McMullin would both have gotten away with a single vote each.

This situation would have made Johnson the kingmaker, or resulted in a second election round, depending on the method of choosing candidate, both would be more fair then the present system.

@Iateapenguin But the extra votes were all from the People's Republic of California!

@Newnetherlander

I've heard that's the talking point from the right-wing, but you know that doesn't mean shit - right?

First of all - those extra Clinton votes of course came from all over the country, it's not like just Californians voted for her.

And secondly - and more importantly - California is still part of the US and people living there are every bit as much citizens of the US as whatever state you live in.

This transparent attempt at delegitimising Clinton's popular vote win by somehow claiming her supporters are less American then those who voted for Trump isn't just undemocratic - it's also simply stupid as it makes no sense.

But then it's an "argument" constructed by the right-wing for their supporters so I guess "stupid" and "not making any sense" is just about the intellectual level they could comprehend.

@Nisse_Hult A little less ego, arrogance, and insult would give you stronger arguments. Personally, I voted against Trump, but am totally turned off by all the over-the-top anti-Trump hysteria that's been out there since November.

@Newnetherlander

There's nothing over-the-top about it.

You should be old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis - right?

Now consider a situation like that happens again with Trump in office - these is simply no way that ends as well.

I've said from election day that from the day Trump is sworn in the world is in a more dangerous situation then it's ever been since the Cuban missile crisis and it is.

Every single day with that unbalanced fool in complete and total command of the world largest nuclear arsenal is a danger greater then anything else in the world.

If we all survive this I can promise you the memoirs that come out after his presidency will be a truly chilling read.

I guarantee you he's already been asking his generals why he can't just nuke North Korea so he can get back to playing golf.

'@Nisse'_Hult "The evidence that Russian tried to influence the US election with the aim of swinging it in Trumps favor has not even been released since that's classified."

"I've said from election day that from the day Trump is sworn in the world is in a more dangerous situation then it's ever been since the Cuban missile crisis and it is.

Every single day with that unbalanced fool in complete and total command of the world largest nuclear arsenal is a danger greater then anything else in the world.

If we all survive this I can promise you the memoirs that come out after his presidency will be a truly chilling read."

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-01-06-Nucleardistribution.jpg

Either you're a dictionary definition of a moron, or claiming that Russians bought Trump to nuke Moscow.

@comrade_Comrade

You splice together different sentances I've written in differant comments, add a link to a jpg for no apparant reason, call me a moron and put words in my mouth I've never said.

Strong "argument" you've got there comrade.

Why don't you go back to telling me again why we should all belive Stalins words becuase he was such a trusthworthy person?

At least that had some comic value.

Fine specimen of densest material known to man.

@comrade_Comrade

Still not an argument in there you know - just more name–calling.

'@Nisse'_Hult argument, obvious to anyone who knows what Cuban Missile Crisis was, was provided.
You chose to be obtuse about it, therefore my reply is not a name-calling, but a characterization based on available evidence.

@comrade_Comrade

Nope, your argument is not obvious at all. How could it be?
All you did was post a couple of quotes from me and called me a moron.
That's no argument at all.
And when I pointed that out you just called me stupid in another way, which is still not an argument at all.

'@Nisse'_Hult ok, let's read by syllables. Complete this sentence: defining characteristic of Cuban Missile Crisis is...

@comrade_Comrade

The ONLY thing you wrote in your comment was:

"Either you're a dictionary definition of a moron, or claiming that Russians bought Trump to nuke Moscow. "

Every other word in it was quoted from me.
Now please explain how that single sentence is an argument on anything?
You calling me a moron and then putting words in my mouth I've never said?

'@Nisse'_Hult can you think and write at the same time? Answer the question.

@comrade_Comrade

Nah, I'll wait for you to answer the question I asked in my last post instead - where's your argument in that one sentence?

'@Nisse'_Hult look at the picture, look at what Cuban Missile Crisis was, think for a bit.

@comrade_Comrade

Well that's not actually a written argument then - is it?
It might be clear to you in your head (or your just bluffing and have nothing) but the rest of us can't actually read your thoughts you know, so you have to write them down if you want to be understood.

'@Nisse'_Hult it is. It depends on reader knowing what Cuban Missile Crisis was. Looks like you don't.

@comrade_Comrade

Of course I do - I'm the one who actually brought it up you know.
And even if I didn't I would have had plenty of time to Google it by know so it's not like these questions of yours are ever going to achieve anything.

You're still just refusing to actually present an argument by asking me things instead - which leads to the conclusion that you don't actually know what the hell you where trying to say in the first place.
Except posting pointless insults.

'@Nisse'_Hult "Of course I do"
If you did, you would be able to describe defining characteristic of Cuban Missile Crisis. You didn't, therefore you don't.

@comrade_Comrade

As I said, by this point I've had all the time in the world to Google it anyway, so you're not getting anywhere with that ridiculous attack.
If you want to know about it so much you can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

I can however not find the answer to my question, the one I put to you before you started with this nonsense anywhere online, which is - where in this sentence is your argument?

"Either you're a dictionary definition of a moron, or claiming that Russians bought Trump to nuke Moscow."

Your continued inability to answer that basic question indicates there actually never was one to begin with.

'@Nisse'_Hult presented evidence still suggest that you're talking about something you don't know, therefore you cannot understand the obvious statement that relies on context.
If you cannot complete a sentence "Defining characteristic of Cuban Missile Crisis was...", answer to which can be easily found in the article you've linked, you're either deliberately obtuse, or have severe learning or cognitive disabilty. Complete that sentence or go talk to the wall.

@comrade_Comrade

You made a comment that made no sense, I pointed it out and asked you to explain yourself and not willing or able to do that you instead ask me pointless questions in return - just to get away from the fact that you can't or won't answer my original question.

By this point I don't really care if you answer my question or not, but I'm sure as hell not going to reward you by answering yours when you can't even answer mine I asked first.

It's just pathetic - you can't even present an argument and a question is met with a counterquestion. It's like talking to a five year old.

'@Nisse'_Hult answer was given, it's PEBCAK on your end. The wall is waiting, it will be a fulfilling conversation for both of you.

@comrade_Comrade

Nah, I've already been talking to a wall for a while now so it's time to do something else.

But thank's for proving yet again you have nothing.

The "Stalin's words must be belived"-discussion was enlightning - this was strike two.

If osmium could be an arrogant liar it would be half as funny as this.

@Iateapenguin But, and this is more important, Trump won the left-handed people and all the ambidextrous ones.

@rphb

A majority clearly didn't want Trump.
Only he and the voices in his head still believe he won the popular vote.

He only won because American democracy is a joke that's elected the candidate with the LEAST amount of votes for the second time now in my lifetime.

First G.W Bush and now Trump. From Dumb to Dumber.
If Trump doesn't blow up the world now maybe the Republicans can elect a feces throwing chimp the next time and put him in the oval office within easy reach of a big red button?

That should do the trick sooner or later...

Also, and more on point, that the Russians tried to influence the election with the aim of getting Trump elected is the official conclusion of the joint US intelligence community.
And I do think they know a lot more about what did or didn't actually happen then you or the right-wing sites that you get your world view from - or Trump for that matter.

@Nisse_Hult Of course, a majority also didn't want Hillary...she did get more votes than Trump, but she didn't break the 50% threshold. Fortunately, our system doesn't depend on the popular vote...it's smarter than that, it considers geographic and regional appeal in addition to popular vote. Hillary's popular vote margin came entirely from California, a deranged state that nobody (aside from Californians) thinks should have any influence on anything.

@Dorsai

A majority of the voters did vote for Clinton yes - and that's all that required to win the popular vote.
There is no need to pass the threshold of 50% of everyone actually eligible to vote - that's a complete misstatement on what constitutes a majority in a democratic election.
Considering the US's very low voter turn out rate practically no president has ever been elected with an actual majority of all eligible voters.
I think you actually know that, but with the "news" source you probably get your information from I'm not entirely sure.

So let's just restate this basic democratic fact - a "majority" in a democratic election is constituted of the majority of the voters who actually chose to participate in the election.
Those that don't doesn't count.

And no - your system is certainly not "smarter" - it's less democratic.

Countries where the majority of the voters wishes are ignored are of course LESS democratic.

And if this had happened to two Republican presidents there would be no end to you and your right-wing brethrens outrage at the completely undemocratic process that would let the candidate with the LEAST amount of popular votes win.

Case in point - in the last election before this, in 2012, Trump mistakenly believed that Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama despite having won the popular vote.
Now Mitt Romney didn't in fact win the popular vote but since Trump's an idiot he never bothered to actually clear that up before he took to his favorite medium of Twitter to blast the terrible state of the US political system:

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

and

"This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!"

where his stated opinion on the matter then. As far as I know he had no problem with the same system when G.W Bush won in 2000 the same way and he sure as hell had no problem with winning that way himself last year.
But the year he for a moment thought a Republican lost because of the electoral collage it was immediately "a disaster for a democracy" and grounds for him calling for "a revolution in this country!" (that tweet was later deleted).

Which just shows that Trump - just like you - are just full of shit. You care nothing for democratic principles at all - all you care about is that your candidate benefits from whatever system is in place.
If they do the system is terrific - if they don't it's a disaster.

You actually go a step further in embracing outright fascism with your belief that some people's votes shouldn't count at all.
At least Trump hasn't actually done that yet - as far as I know. He just called for a revolution.

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-electoral-college-popular-vote-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

@Nisse_Hult Um...no, really, Hillary did *not* get a majority of the vote. She got 48.2% of the popular vote, Trump got 46.1% of the popular vote, and the remaining 5.7% went to third party candidates. If you don't understand basic math, or the meaning of the word 'majority', then it is not possible for us to have a useful discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

@Dorsai

Yeah, I misspoke. Exchange the word "majority" for "plurality" in my first sentence above. So this:

"A majority of the voters did vote for Clinton yes - and that's all that's required to win the popular vote."

should read:

"A plurality of the voters did vote for Clinton yes - and that's all that's required to win the popular vote".

You point is semantically true and I concede I used the wrong word - but it means nothing for the larger argument.

Clinton would still be the winner by democratic terms even if she had only gotten 10% of the votes cast, Trump 9% and 81 other candidate had gotten 1% each. Her actual percentage of the votes cast is immaterial as long as she won a plurality - which she did.

Democracy is not about winning a fixed percentage but winning the largest popular support - that's the entire point of "one person, one vote". Every single citizen should have the same share in running the country.

The current US system is therefore less democratic since it doesn't actually work on that principle, but awards slightly more then 1.0 votes to voters in some states and slightly less in others.

And since this current imbalance favors the Republicans you think it's a wonderful system of course - but it's still not in accordance with democratic principles.

But then neither are the Republicans voter suppression laws that work to actively discourage citizens of minority descent to vote - but I'm sure your all fine with that too.

Because as I said - you and Trump don't actually care about democracy at all of course. Just as long as you're winning on the system your all for it, however it works.

@Nisse_Hult LOL. The 'current imbalance' favors Republicans only because Democrats have chosen to make themselves the party of the inner cities and college campuses. There have been many elections in which Democrats have won the presidency with wide support across the country...because they chose to appeal to the country as a whole. They should choose differently next time.

The rest of your comment, unfortunately, is nonsense. Voter suppression? Not caring about democracy? You're clearly getting all your information from the same people who convinced you that Hillary won a majority of the popular vote.

@Dorsai

The Democrats are representing policy's based on science and facts while the Republicans are basing their policies on dog-whistle calls to racism and economic policies that's bankrupting the nation to enrich the few at the very top.
People with higher education can see the difference and vote accordingly and the higher educated are centered around big cities and collage towns - obviously.

But where people live shouldn't be a factor in a national election for president at all - that's completely undemocratic to begin with.
The entire electoral collage is a complete abomination from a democratic standpoint - just like Trump said when he thought it cost Romney the presidency in 2012.

The Democrats historically did better when the American voters - even if they where less educated then today - where smarter.
But with right-wing propaganda dumbing down a large part of the American electorate they now vote for a reality-TV star who inherited his billions in the belief that he will be their champion.
Of course they'll be completely f**ed over by Trump and his billionaire friends - but as long as they keep feeding from the right-wing propaganda trough they'll probably find a way to blame Obama or Hillary anyway.

The Republicans have complete control over all the three branches of the federal government but they can't even get their own bills passed - but still it's always somehow the democrats faults.

Now the American public didn't use to be as stupid as this, but there has been a significant dumbing down in the last decades and there is an interesting parallel in the UK with Brexit.
In both countries Rupert Murdoch of Fox News own media empires that pump out right-wing propaganda. My guess is we'll see more attention to that fact if the rest of Europe keeps on rejecting the far-right as it has so far in Holland and France.

The US-UK axis seems to be an exception - at least so far.

Yep - voter suppression. I guess you don't get to hear about that from the propaganda outlets you call news but it's a very real thing indeed. Republican legislatures keeps coming up with new laws and the judiciary keeps striking many of them down as unconstitutional.

Just because it's a common mantra of US politicians to extol the incredible freedom and democracy of the US you don't actually believe that's true - do you?
Your system is used as a warning example of what not to become as a nation in basically all European countries. But most Trump voters won't know about that of course, because they're too stupidly chauvinistic to believe there could ever be any problem with the US system - being spoofed "American exceptionalism" their whole life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

And yep - neither you nor Trump clearly care a jot about democracy. He blasted the electoral system as completely undemocratic as I've shown you when he thought it cost Romney the last election, but he's not said a word about it since someone informed him Romney didn't actually win the popular vote.
And he's completely fine with winning this way himself - although he called for a revolution just 4 years ago when he thought Romney lost.
So he's clearly not interested in democratic principles at all.

And you've advocated here for suspending democracy all together and striping citizens of California of all influence in the democratic process.

Obviously neither of you care one bit about democracy - it's all just words to you. As long as your candidate wins you're fine with any undemocratic infringements to the US system.

And no one "convinced me" about anything. As I said I misspoke and used the word "majority" when I should have used "plurality".

But if you'd like to avoid those kind of problems we could always continue this discussion in my native language of Swedish instead if you'd prefer?
I'm sure your Swedish is much better then my English - right?

@Nisse_Hult No, you didn't misspeak - you just didn't know what the hell you were talking about. If you were actually thinking 'plurality' but wrote 'majority', you wouldn't have gotten onto that whole tangent where you lectured me about getting a majority of the actual vote versus a majority of the eligible electorate. That whole discussion only made sense if you actually believed in the first place that Hillary got more than 50% of the votes cast.

It's that combination of ignorance and arrogance that is bothering me here. You clearly get all your information from whatever the Swedish equivalent of CNN is, meaning you actually *know* nothing. You probably don't have the faintest idea why our president is elected the way he is...although I'm sure you're rushing off to Wikipedia right now to find out. And then to top it off, you have to make up accusations ("And you've advocated here for suspending democracy all together [...]") which are nonsensical.

The best part? After having made a complete fool of yourself, you will still sit there and lecture me (and anyone else dumb enough to engage) on subjects about which you know nothing.

Anyway...I've spent far more time than I should have bickering with people over a cartoon. You're welcome to the last word here, and we'll call it a day.

@Dorsai

Oh great - you can read minds now too?
That always comes in handy when you want to "win" an argument right - just make stuff up the other person thinks and attack him for it when you can't find actual arguments.

It's terrible that you're such a Nazi by the way. Yep - I just read your mind.
Your Nazi, Anti Semitic mind...

Actually, that whole discussion made perfect sense as what I was clearly answering was what I thought was your argument - that Clinton didn't win the majority of all ELIGIBLE votes as compared to votes actually cast which is was matters in the election.

That's why the bulk of my argument on that, right after the first sentence where I mistakenly wrote "majority" instead of "plurality" reads:

"There is no need to pass the threshold of 50% of everyone actually eligible to vote - that's a complete misstatement on what constitutes a majority in a democratic election.
Considering the US's very low voter turn out rate practically no president has ever been elected with an actual majority of all eligible voters."

Notice how those two sentences both talk about eligible voters as compared to actual voters? That's clearly because I thought you were trying to make a point about Clinton not winning a majority of all ELIGIBLE votes as compared to votes actually cast.

If Clinton got 50% of the votes cast or not didn't enter into my thinking at all as that as I've said is completely besides the point. She still got a plurality of the vote - which in a democracy should win her the election. She doesn't need to win a majority of either the actual votes cast or all the eligible votes but I thought you where trying to lessen the importance of her popular vote win even more by arguing that she didn't win a majority of all ELIGIBLE votes.

Which is why I said basically no president has ever been elected with that kind of support.

Now that makes NO sense if I would - like you claim - have believed we were talking about simply winning 50% of the votes actually cast, because clearly a lot of president's have won with that kind of margin.

But with US voter turn out rates being low for most democracies, actually winning 50% of all ELIGIBLE votes within the actual votes cast would mean that the winner would have to win a complete blow-out victory with something like 90-95% of all votes cast.

Now that have - as far as I know - never happened in US history, so clearly that's actually what I was talking about above.

"It's that combination of ignorance and arrogance that is bothering me here. You clearly get all your information from whatever the Swedish equivalent of CNN is, meaning you actually *know* nothing."

Once again with the mind-reading...

Actually I don't watch TV at all - I don't even own one.
I read newspapers instead.
On US and international news mainly the New York Time, Washington Post, BBC and The Guardian. Haaretz on Israel and Swedish major newspapers of course.
Since I don't watch Swedish TV I actually don't know now, but at least some years ago Sweden didn't even have anything as bad as CNN - and I actually don't think we do now either.

Most European countries have a state owned but independent broadcasting service that is very professional and can concentrate 100% on informing the public.
Funded either directly by state funds or through a fee for TV-ownership they're free from all commercials and don't have to spend one second of their day thinking about what sells or rates well.
Like our politicians they're serious professionals and don't get their jobs on looks or likeability but competence.

We have private competition as well - other channels run for profit - but if they want to be taken seriously as a news network they have to measure up to the standard of the state-owned non-commercial networks.

Gimmicky US "news" with shallow discussions about flag-pins don't really compete well in most European countries I don't think.

Think of it this way - Europe is older and more mature, the US is only in it's adolescence compared to most European nations.
We as a continent has also been through a lot more then the US has, which has basically coasted along since it's founding.
Your "dark moments" are nothing compared to the utter despair European nations have been through and like an older person that's lived through more, Europeans culture is also more serious as a consequence, compared to the US.

I'm certainly not ignorant and what you take as arrogance is - I believe - more your resentment of having your US-centric world view challenged.

Remember we in Europe know a lot more about you then you do about us. We get all your movies, TV-shows and music and we understand you and your system and culture far better then you understand us as a consequence.

And the US is certainly not more free or more democratic then any western nation - that's just nonsense.
And the fact that your election systems allows the candidate that got the LEAST number of votes to actually win is clearly not a sign of a great democracy.

It obviously suits you and Trump as the system is currently rigged in your favor - but it's still rigged and as such less democratic.

For such a young nation the US is strangely locked in the past. I guess it's because you have so little history you feel the need to mythologize the one you do have.
So the founding fathers becomes these demi-gods that crafted a perfect document that can never be altered, like some sacred scripture.

The US system was the most democratic in the world - in it's day. Then a few years later the French revolution surpassed you and on that way it's been going ever since.

Europe - and the rest of the world - have steadily become more and more democratic over the centuries while the US system is an antiquated relic based on a document intended to serve only 13 colonies 300 years ago.

Despite the fact that every nation in Europe has a lot older legislative history then that no one actually bases their current legislation on something that archaic - and there's a reason for that - it doesn't work very well.

Legislation needs to be upgraded to the times and change with the societies it's intended to reflect.
Amending get's you only so far - eventually you need to re-draft the entire thing.

That doesn't mean you abandon the principles of course - it just means that you put them in a modern context that actually relevant to the times and speaks to the actual situation, and not pretend that something written 300 years ago will forever be perfect - because it won't.

"And then to top it off, you have to make up accusations ("And you've advocated here for suspending democracy all together [...]") which are nonsensical."

I did no such thing - I just reminded you of what you yourself wrote earlier.

Your comment:
"California, a deranged state that nobody (aside from Californians) thinks should have any influence on anything."

Is, as my full quote reads:
"And you've advocated here for suspending democracy all together and striping citizens of California of all influence in the democratic process."

Saying that US citizens of Carlifornia shouldn't have any influence on anything is advocating for the suspension of democracy - it's just a fact.

You may regret now that you wrote that like Trump probably regrets writing that the electoral collage is a disaster for a democracy, but you and he still did.

I'm not making anything up - I'm just pointing out what you both wrote.

"The best part? After having made a complete fool of yourself, you will still sit there and lecture me (and anyone else dumb enough to engage) on subjects about which you know nothing."

You know, telling other what a failure they are instead of actually making your case and letting other readers make their judgment isn't actually a sign of great confidence in your argument.
It's just like Trump in his tweets that needs to add "FAIL!" and "SAD!" all the time.
It doesn't actually strengthen your argument but I guess it makes you both feel better?

'@Dorsai'' @Nisse'_Hult

Even for a Swede that was autistic.

@Nisse_Hult
"The Democrats are representing policy's based on science and facts" a bold statement from the party whose followers think there are more than two actual genders while dismissing science

@Danieleon

You shouldn't talk about things you don't understand - you'll only end up embarrassing yourself.

There is in fact more then two genders as gender is the social construct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

You're actually talking about sex, which is the biological component:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

Now as you see if you read up on this, there is actually not just two distinct sexes either.

That's the actual science. What your talking about is instead unscientific assumptions made based on religious texts written thousands of years ago by people who didn't know what we do today.

You can chose to cling to that old and faulty description of the world if you want, but the scientific community has moved on and you'd be arguing against modern science if you do.

@Dorsai Okay, let's get rid of California, all those stinking liberals are idiots. But, while we're at it, let's get rid of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi.

Why those specific states? Because added together, they have roughly the same number of Trump voters as California had Clinton voters.

Oddly enough, I don't hear people calling for Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi to be thrown out of elections. Why? Because it sounds stupid when you put it this way. Go figure.

FYI, here's my math in case anyone wants to double check my numbers

Clinton voters in California: 8,753,788
Trump Voters in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi: 684,872+1,252,401+163,387+1,318,255+409,055+1,557,286+800,983+671,018+1,202,971+700,714=8760942

BTW, I probably could've pulled even more states out of my a** that voted trump that could be kicked out and still have a lower number of Trump votes than California Clinton voters, these aren't even the least populous Trump states, I was just lazy and went in alphabetical order off of wikipedia, if I actually put more than 5 minutes of work into this, I could probably come up with even more less populous states to substitute for the more populous ones. Or, I could compile a list of states whose DIFFERENCE of Trump voters to Clinton voters equals California's difference in Clinton to Trump voters. But that would take way too much time, and would probably have at least a dozen states on the list (since I would like to remind you that our president won by hair's breadths in certain states).

So, TL;DR, I could make your concept of disregarding California look even stupider if I wanted to. With math. Don't try me.

'@Nisse'_Hult
First of all yes, the American election system is a joke. All in America have to vote strategically because a vote for their favourite candidate will be wasted in at least 99% of the cases. So everyone votes on who they hate the least.

Second, yes it is the conclusion of the US intelligence community.
Just as it was their conclusion that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction.
That they had no idea about Pearl Harbour ahead of time,
or about the sinking of lusitania
Or the USS Maine incident.

What these things have in common is that they are all propaganda.
They are used to fabricate a causa belli, and they have been using these tactics for centuries. I can trace these lies from the American administration back to at least the war of 1812, and it is the same song every time.

What I find disturbing is that they are trying to use it against Russia, because they are not going to win that war if they actually start it.
We all have to call them on their bullshit and not just believe what they say like lemmings.

Answer me this:
Why trust a known liar, even if they actually knew what was going on, what assurance do we have that they are telling the truth. Does their long track record of lies not make thee doubt them even a little?

@rphb

Actually it was never the conclusion of the US intelligence community that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - that was the G. W Bush administration that copy-pasted together what the various intelligence agencies actually did say to get the answer they wanted.

The Bush administration wanted the war and they said and did whatever they needed to make it happen - including drawing assumptions from raw intelligence data that the intelligence professionals didn't actually state themselves.

The other examples you list are many decades or even centuries ago in an era when the US intelligence apparatus wasn't even a shadow of what it is today. There is no serious historical argument that the US intelligence agencies should have been able to know of any of these events before they happened - that's just ridiculous.

So what you offer up is a conspiracy theory - of course, since you've listed infamous conspiracy site InfoWars as a source for things earlier on this site.

The problem with that is that it might seem perfectly logical in YOUR mind - but you have to remember that the rest of us live in the real world and don't actually consider conspiracy theories to be proof.

Why trust a know liar you say? Well no one lies more then Trump for Christ sakes! The man has NO credibility what so ever!

Whereas the US intelligence community of course has an agenda here I'd say starting a war with Russia is clearly not it - that's part of the conspiracy theories you've been feeding on talking.

If anything the intelligence community's own preference would more likely be a return to the cold war since that would give them a major role to play. An actual war with Russia would a) not be handled by them any way but by the armed forces and b) be over in minutes and then we'd all live in a nuclear wasteland for the rest of our short lives, so no - I definitely don't think it's in the interest of the US intelligence community to start a war with Russia.

But if the motive here was to bring back the cold war to strengthen the intelligence communities power it still doesn't make any sense.

Partly because the intelligence community's actually never been bigger then it is now in the war on terror - they don't need to relive the glory days of the cold war - they are the cutting edge of American power already as it is.
The armed forces don't know what to strike with drones or attack with special op's without the intelligence to locate targets so the entire war on terror is driven by the intelligence community anyway.
And secondly - if they had this love for the cold war - why didn't they fabricate this evidence of Russian election tampering before?

The cold wars been over for decades and the US intelligence community has never once before claimed that Russia tried to interfere in any US elections - why not, if this was their goal?

There's also the fact that this conclusion is supported by numerous American allies in Europe, who have uncovered evidence of Russian attempts to infiltrate their societies and influence their elections as well.

So no - you're just refusing to see the most likely answer here because it's not the answer you would like.
But instead of any actual evidence or rational analysis you have nothing but conspiracy theories to offer.

'@Nisse'_Hult
There can be many reasons for as to why they would lie, one of them, obviously also have to do with delegitimizing Trump. The fact is that there have not been a president that have won as massive a victory since Ronald Reagan.
I am less then pleased with what Trump have done recently, he seems to be backtracking on all of his election promises, including the most important one at all, his anti-war stance.
It is a complete breach on international law, tantamount of a warcrime to attack a sovereign country like he did in Syria. The truth is always very mudled a war zone like that, but there is no rational reason for why Assad would use sarin gas, and no empirical evidence that suggest that he have.
And even if he did, it is not up to Trump, because his job as commander-in-chief is to defend America, nothing else.

Regarding the elections in Europe, there have been rumours of course, because the globalist in charge of all of our governments, don’t like the nationalist insurgence that is springing up everywhere in the west, they want to delegitimacy this righteous popular uprising, and they want to blame an external threat.
The fact about Russia is that it is the only Christian great power that is left in the world. Back doing the cold war it was the enemy of Christendom as it was communist and thereby atheist. But now that Russia have rediscovered its roots they are afraid that the rest of the west will do the same.
Why won’t people accept unlimited migration from the third world?
Why won’t people accept terror as a way of life in the 21st century?
And why are people mad that Sweden have become the rape capital of Europe

It is not a conspiracy that Islam brings terror, it is radially apperent for anyone that don’t live in a bubble.
It is however a conspiracy to say that Russia hacked the American election, because there is no proofs, only accusations.

@rphb

Jesus, you're like a poster boy for every right-wing fantasy aren't you? *facepalm*

Trump's win wasn't the largest since Reagan - it was actually one of the smallest in all of US history:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/donald-trump-electoral-victory-claim/

There are plenty of both reasons for and evidence that Assad used chemical weapons - just like he's done on several occasions before:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/26/syria-assad-forces-carried-out-sarin-attack-says-french-intelligence

Your entire spiel on "globalists in charge of all our governments" are just your view of the world from your far-right perspective. But there would be no reason for anyone in Europe to blame an "external threat" like you claim - the threat from the far-right is very real just as it is without the Russian element.

It's more strange to the rest of us that you all that claim yourselves to be such nationalists all are so desperate for Putins approval. The entire far-right is basically blowing Putin in public and then act surprised when the rest of us notices.
Why this love for the Russian president? If your all so desperate for a strong leader, why can't you just idolize your own leaders (even more then you do) instead of fawning over Putin all the time?

Russia is clearly not "the only Christian great power that is left in the world" - the US is clearly more of a Christian nation than Russia is, for instance. Putin uses the orthodox church like anything else to strengthen his own power but he started out as a KGB-officer. Neither he or the men around him are religious in any way at all.
Which is actually a good thing about both him and Trump - at least they're not delusional in that way, unlike Trump's VP Pence.

It's been said so many times but truth clearly doesn't matter to you I see.
Still - Sweden is not the rape capitol of anything - that's a completely bogus claim made by two infamous islamophobes.
It's been debunked repeatedly, like here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

And of course it's complete bullshit to claim that "Islam brings terror". People adhering to f***ed-up ideologies commits acts of terror in accordance with their ideology.
Some people who are Muslim claims Islam gives them a license to commit terror - some people who are Christians, Jewish, Hindu or Sikh also do. In the west it's more common to cite political ideologies as an excuse to commit terror acts though - mostly fascism at the moment - but you far-righters don't actually admit you're fascist these days of course.

But the majority of either Muslims or Christians or any other religion of course never either commit or support any acts of terror and the religions in and of themselves gives no blanket support for terror.
It's you personal interpretation of the religion that makes all the difference.

But being a far-right fundamentalist you of course agree with Muslim fundamentalists that Islam gives it's followers a license to commit acts of terror.

But since your two fundamentalist camps only comprise a few percent of the entire world population you don't get to decide that and most Muslims and Christians of course don't agree with either of you at all.

So why don't you fundamentalist just do the rest of us the favor of pissing of and fighting out your war between yourselves?

I promise you - no one will miss either of you if you all die in that epic battle between your faiths you both dream about.
If all you far-right fundamentalist die valiantly in the defense of Christianity or "Western culture" or what ever f***ed-up nonsense you think you fight for I promise I'll build you a nice memorial praising you deeds - OK?

And the US intelligence community hasn't actually said that "Russia hacked the American election". What the joint US intelligence agencies have said is that Russia sought to influence the election in the support of Trump.
One of the ways they did that was to hack certain institutions like the DNC.

But I think your choosing you wording here based on the propaganda you've been reading, because I know the "Russia didn't hack the election!" has been used by the far-right by claiming that there is no proof that Russia actually hacked into electronic voting machines to change the actual vote count. That's completely true - there is no such evidence.
But it's also a complete red herring as the intelligence community HAS NEVER CLAIMED Russia influenced the election specifically that way or that that is the ONLY way in which they could have influenced the election.

Spreading hacked emails and fake news is also a way to influence the election and that's what's been claimed by US intelligence.

Exactly how much of an influence they actually had have not been specified as that's very hard to say. But the fact that they did try to influence the election is serious enough and yes, there is evidence of that:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/washington/2017/01/05/russian-cyberattacks-draw-senate-hearing/96191380/

'@Nisse'_Hult

1)
What I meant about Trump having the biggest win since Reagan, is the biggest republican win, for instance he was the only one since Reagan that took Pennsylvania, and almost all of the rustbelt, and the reason why is because he represented the workers whereas Hillary only represented the hippie elite.
Now let us just hope that he follows though, because President Trump, have so far been far less “presidential” then candidate Trump.

2) Globalism vs nationalism
Is not left vs right, it is up vs down. In the old days the left was very much anti-globalism, anti-authoriarianism, very much anti-war, in short very much on our side, for the things that really mattered.
I don’t understand what happened to the left, I liked Bernie Sanders, he had some crazy ideas, but he also had a few good ones like wanting to break up the big banks
Please explain to me, while ye have flip-flopped so.

3) Russiaphile
What we, and what I mean is nationalist not “the right” like about Russia is that they are in opposition to the globalist agenda, and that they are a Christian nation. If thou think that the United State are Christian, then please explain the decadence, the celebration of perversion such as hemophilia and that which is much much worse then hemophilia. Please explain the laws that actively perverts the institution of marriage.
The right is not in control, we haven’t been for a very long time, and ye should be glad to have someone like Trump, he bares all the hallmarks of a doubleagent.
The right are the counter-culture, and the left are the establishment, there is no denying that.
Things have been moving so far to the left that even a moderate like Marine Le Pen are seen as far right. The dangers are from the far left, from organizations like antifa. Please explain the Berkeley riots.

4) “People adhering to f***ed-up ideologies commits acts of terror in accordance with their ideology.”
Agree. And that Ideology is called Islam. No Christian, Buddist or Sikh have ever committed terror in the name of their religion.
There are people from these religions that have turned atheist and committed terror, there are people from these religions that have committed terror in the name of nationalism and there are people from these religions that have turned communist and brought on terror in that name.

5) The Rape capital of Europe
It is not an official title, it is just a conclusion based on how many rapes are committed there, compared to other European cities.
But instead of listening exclusively to dinosaur medias, try to use thy own eyes, go to one of the infamous ghettos like Rinkeby and see how it is like, or listen to one of the real experts like Ingrid Carlqvist.
There is a very good interview with her here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FluvpeD6lhQ
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-20/meanwhile-rioting-breaks-out-sweden

6) Far right fundamentalist
I am not a far right fundamentalist. I am a nationalist (which is neither left nor right but down as I have explained), and I am more or less centrist on the left-right scale.
Remember right is liberal, left is socialist, up is globalist, down is nationalist.
I just took the political compass test again to test where I am https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-0.5&soc=-0.15
Quite centrist actually.
So stop slurring labels at me, I think it is important that we don’t put a label on the other that he don’t also agree on. As I said, thou can call me a nationalist. And if thou want to specify it, thou can call me a national-liberal, because that is what I self-identify as.

7) Russian influence
“One of the ways they did that was to hack certain institutions like the DNC”
Wikileaks itself says it was an inside leak, and I find the story that there are some democrats that still have a conscious, and wants to expose the corruption in their own party, more plausible then the story that it was just an outside hack.
I don’t think voting machines should exist, there is no paper trail, no way to guarantee that the voting is honest. And regarding “fake news” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IDF-8khS3w
Be careful what thou call fake news. All news organizations have a narrative; some are pushing it harder than others, but they all believe in something. Just choosing what to cover and what not to cover can be considered a form of manipulation. For instance the mainstream media ran a massive slur campaign against Trump based on an inappropriate comment he thought he had said in private, more than a decade ago. At the same time they ignored Hillary’s failing health and all of the other scandals surrounding her.

8) Class of civilisations
“If all you far-right fundamentalist die valiantly in the defense of Christianity or "Western culture" or what ever f***ed-up nonsense you think you fight for I promise I'll build you a nice memorial praising you deeds - OK?”
This is an almost stereotypical example of how an r-selective human think.
Ye want to let the enemy in through the gate, so that they will kill all of your own alpha males that tries to defend our civilization.
But the problem is that we won’t be the only casualties. Western civilization have given your kind, everything, if it falls to Islam, if we fail to defend it, ye will all be hanging from lightpost the next dawn.

I admit that I did not understand the leftist mind until I learned about r/k selection theory.
But it goes like this.
r-selectives focus on quantity. For them resources are limitless because it is external factors that limits their population. An example is rabbits. A rabbit mom don’t care about loosing a kitten, because she can always make more. And a rabbit don’t have to run faster than the predator, it just have to be able to run faster than one other rabbit. There is no group loyalty, no honour among the r’s.

It is quite opposite for the k-selective. They focus on quality. A typical example is the wolf. Don’t even think about getting close to a wolfmoms cubs, she will defend them with her life. She loves her children because she puts great effort into each of them. Wolfs population are limited by intrinsic factors by their own skills, and a smart wolf is a great advantage for the whole pack.

The theory works on humans as well, as there are some people (leftist) that thinks that resources are limitless, and others (rightist) that understand that resources are limited.
I don’t mind that we collectively pays for certain privileges, like healthcare, that is why I am centrist. But I understand that it is a privilege and not a right. It is critical that we understand that. Rights are natural, they come from God, privileges are things we have to work for.
Liberty is a right, eating is a privilege. Food is limited, if we don’t work for it, and no one is willing to share theirs, we starve. Giving alms is a virtue, but it is not a duty, we don’t have the right, to the fruit of other peoples labour.

@rphb

I didn't even waste my time reading all of that and I'm certainly not going to comment on it in detail.

I'll just highlight one quote from your comment so other people know what kind of person you are and won't have to waste time reading all of that to find out.

"If thou think that the United State are Christian, then please explain the decadence, the celebration of perversion such as hemophilia and that which is much much worse then hemophilia. Please explain the laws that actively perverts the institution of marriage."

So according to rphb the US and the west in general celebrates perversion by accepting homosexuality. (You actually write "hemophilia" which is actually a genetic blood disorder, but I don't think you actually mean that - right?)

Ok then, that should mean we can all agree that he's a fucked up nutcase that no one need to waste their time talking to.

It's especially rare, considering the fact that if memory serves me right he's like 16 or something (he used to have his age entered before) and lives in Denmark.

Which probably means he's the unfortunate son of some really fundamentalist Christians, because Danish society at large certainly don't have that attitude against homosexuality at all.

That or he's just a stupid kid who fell into the far-right cesspool online and turned out like this as a result.

Either way - not worth wasting your time on. Let's just hope he wises up as he grows older.

'@Nisse'_Hult
Thou know that ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy right?
Yes I meant homophile, it must have been that damn autocorrect, but does my rejection of a sexsual perversion makes me a bad person?
And the worse things I talked about was “transsexuals”.
People like Bruce Jenner have been celebrated for becoming a eunuch. Thou see, that is something that a man can become, but he cannot become a women. Because gender is not a choice, it is not an ideology or a way of life, it is a very vary basic fact of life.
One of my absolute favorite quotes is this:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Isaiah 5:20
It is from the bible, but that shouldn’t discredit it, it is such a perfect saying, for these that deny reality.

I don’t think that homophiles should be thrown off a roof, as they do it in Muslim countries. It is a disorder, and we should help them, if they want our help, if they don’t, if they choose to live in sin, we should shun them.
It is very important that we never violate the non-aggression principle.

@rphb

Well calling someone who claims that homosexuality is a "sexual perversion" or a "disorder" is a "fucked up nutcase" isn't actually an ad hominem attack - because you ARE a fucked up nutcase for believing that nonsense.

Homosexuality is completely natural - it's been recorded in at least 1,500 species of animals all over this planet - including in humans - and it's existed all through recorded history. It's nothing but absolutely normal - that's just a fact.

But since you base your beliefs about what is "normal" vs. a "perversion" on texts written almost 2000 years ago by people who didn't understand that you're just spewing ignorance and stupidity.

'@Nisse'_Hult

I never refer to the Bible for any of my arguments, moral or otherwise because to do so would be a logical fallacy (appeal to authority), it is simply a lie to claim that I do.
And yes it is a sexual perversion. Just because it takes place in nature don’t mean that it is natural. Because that is not what we (philosophers) mean when we use the word “natural” in a moral context.
We refer to the natural law, that is objective, Absolute morality, that exist independently of human judgments.
The basic all human laws are “malum in se” that is actions that are naturally evil, evil in themselves. Rape, theft and murder are always mentioned as examples of malum in se.
Swindle, robbery, adultery and treason can also logically be added to the list.
Homophilia is an unnatural perversion, because it does not serve the natural purpose of intercourse namely procreation, and procreation within the right context, namely matrimony.
Matrimony is of course something that existed before the church, it is natural. What the church does it to bless it, that is make it official in a legal context, which is important in an organized society. It is one of the key components of an organized society to have legally binding contracts.
But the concept itself is just a man and a women that joins together in order to raise a family.
It is an important aspect of being k-selective.
That is a biological reproduction strategy. There are two basic strategies r-selective that focus on quantity, and k-selective that focus on quality.
To maximize the quality of the offspring’s, we need to maximize the resources that the children get, and matrimony is the result of how humans naturally are. The women is pregnant for a very long time, compared to most species and the baby is very helpless, and require a lot of nurture. So women that lives an optimal life, needs to dedicate of her productive years raising her children, which is why she needs a husband to provide the external resources, for her and their shared children.

It is very sad that feminism have convinced many women to live suboptimal lives, to focus on careers rather than family, which means that they end up wasting their lives on a meaningless career while their uterus dries up and becomes useless.
It is a man’s job to provide for wife and children, he is built to it, he is much stronger both mentally and physically and have far more endurance.

A homophile breaks this whole natural chain, his desires are that of an alcoholic or a compulsive gambler, they are destructive to his own wellbeing. He is left childless, just like the feminist that have been led astray by the false ideology.
Thou may think it too simplistic to simply reduce the purpose of life to the basic biological fact. There may be more to it then this, but this is objectively our purpose, to continue our genes. And we are a k-selective species, we don’t just spit them out by the dozens like a rabbit and hope for the best.

@rphb

First sentance in your last reply:

"I never refer to the Bible for any of my arguments"

From your reply before that:

"One of my absolute favorite quotes is this:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Isaiah 5:20"

My reply:

*facepalm*

'@Nisse'_Hult I never *use the bible as justification* for my arguments. that doesn't mean that I cannot quote it

@Nisse_Hult Russians or Russia government?
If Russia government, than I would like some evidence, like recorded calls, hacked emails or something. Now we have conclusion that Russia might have tried to influence.
If it is private organizations and persons, people from around world were creating fake stories, using propaganda against Clinton. Just so she would lose, because they hate her more than they hate Trump.
On popular vote. Well candidates fight for electoral college and target specific states. It is hard to say how it would ended if popular vote decided outcome, might be same result, or overhelming Trump victory/loss.

@MiskisM

Well both obviously - Russians working on the behest of the Russian government. And possibly also non-Russians, but still working on the behest of the Russian government.
That's the conclusion of the joint US intelligence community in regards to the election in the US and there have as I said in some comment here been corroborating reports from several European countries about the same kind of activities happening there as well.

There where of course private individuals trying to influence the election too - every Facebook post is that - but that's not the point here but specifically the Russian governments involvement.

And regarding that "people from around the world" bit it actually seems like a large part of the privately initiated fake news came from just one single little town in Macedonia where teenagers feed Trump-voters outrageous lies because it earned them money on the web-traffic:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38168281

So no one is saying every single attempt at influencing the US elections were directed by the Russian government - that's not the point.
It's serious enough that the conclusion is that the Russian government actually did this - even if they weren't alone.

You might want evidence but being pro-Russian and Lithuanian my guess is your actually ethnically Russian and therefore not actually objective here but rather pro-Putin in your outlook?

Now Putin famously denied sending Russian troops to the Crimea, just to award medals to the same Russian troops moths later for the successful invasion of the Crimea - so he's not exactly to be trusted on anything.

And there is plenty of corroborating evidence here from young Russians who've actually worked in the troll factories set up to influence the west by spamming fake comments online and such.

Not to mention as I said that other countries security agencies have contributed own reports on these kind of Russian infiltration attempts.

Even if I guess that's the version you get from Russian state-owned media it's not actually the case that Europe is some extension of the US.
If the US intelligence community would be completely making these things up - in conflict with their own president - it's really unlikely that several European countries security agencies would go along with that and just spread lies knowingly.

And the US intelligence community can't make other countries intelligence agencies believe things happened in their nations if they didn't.

Unless you go full conspiracy theory here and believe that the US intelligence community is lying to not only their own president and congress, but also to all their allies and actually attacking their allies systems and making it look like the Russians did it just to make Russia look bad - but why would they?

It's simply not probable that all these different reports from different sources should all turn out to not be true at all.

Now exactly how big an influence the Russian government actually did get no one really knows or have stated - but the serious thing here is that all evidence support the conclusion that they did in fact try at all.

@Nisse_Hult Nah, not ethnically Russian, cant even speak Russian except few phrases. Not pro-Putin. Written this just to clarify these points. Wanted to write more on political points, but just got tired of politics. I think US is cesspool of warmongers (fucked up democracy) and Russia is dictatorial state (also warmongers). Europe should go it's own and say screw both to them.

@Nisse_Hult We elected the candidate with the least amount of votes? Give my congrats to Jill Stein!

@rphb You can argue about to what degree Russia meddled in the US election but its indisputable that they did. In fact it would not even be the first time.

'@Dasneko'
the leftist keep repeating that to themselves. They say for instance that it was a Russian hack that gave wikileake some inside DNC information, when wikileake themselves says it was an inside leak.
And no offence, but I trust wikileak a little more then the US intelligence community.

And the leak itself, was about making the public aware of some very insidious things that was taking place inside the Democrat party.
So even if the hoax that the Russians were involved had been true, their effect was to make the election MORE democratic, by making the voters aware of information that their own media had been covering up, (that is the dinosaur media such as the Counterfeit News Network or CNN for short)

@rphb

"the leftist keep repeating that to themselves."

Yes, such well known leftist organizations as the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS and so on. The entire US intelligence community in fact - all known for their decidedly leftist sympathies.

God, your level of bullshit is sad to read...

'@Nisse'_Hult thou hast that in reverse. These are the deep state, that use leftist such as social justice warriors as useful idiots.
Please understand the difference between puppet, and puppet masters.

@rphb

Said the boy citing InfoWars as a source.

You're a conspiracy theory nutcase with no proof of anything you claim. Just stop pretending you have anything relevant to add to any discussion, OK?

'@Nisse'_Hult
I might say the same about someone using CNN as a source

@rphb

You could, but it'd be a bit like comparing a child's rants to an old academic's. The academic is still wrong about some things, but that's a matter of biased interpretation of data, rather than wildly imaginative conjecture based on dubious, at best, information, which is often truncated and taken out of context.

'@quazimojojojo'
Speaking of out of context, I don't know what thou art replying to, so I really don't have enough information to give an answer

@rphb

Just to start: Why do you use 'thou' and 'art' and 'hast' in your typing? I don't mean that as a veiled insult, I'm honestly curious. It's a rather uncommon practice nowadays.

Anyway:
My comment was replying to your comment comparing infowars to CNN. If you're familiar at all with how to spot manipulative headlines, infowars is absolutely inundated with them. The articles aren't much better (often worse). Lots of words which are meant to make you emotional/angry/outraged mixed in with key pieces of information from which very unreasonable conclusions are drawn.

If you already agree with what they're saying, then it will feel like a great source of news since they are supporting your existing views. If you emotionally distance yourself from that site's "reporting", it reeks of bullshit. Most of it at least.

There are a few articles which are fairly neutral (but still are very clearly pushing for an emotional response/subtly attacking viewpoints inconsistent with the site's ideology, as a lot of sites do). The, distressingly short, article on the Eiffel tower stunt by greenpeace activists for example. As it happens, other news sources which are less hilariously biased covered the same story in much the same way, but with more information and fewer strategically placed quotes meant to imply the official report is dishonest.

'@quazimojojojo'
Alex Jones is a bit like an umpa lumpa aren’t he. They are like the young turks, they have their very particular point of view.
My favorite online newspaper is zerohedge and my favorite newsstation is RT.
CNN however is just the mouthpiece of the CIA today.
I don’t like the bombastic way infowars delivers its news, it is very opinion oriented, but at least they don’t try to hide their opinion. There is no such thing as neutral news, the very fact of what they choose to cover and what they choose not to cover is a bias.
I try to listen to a great many different postcast, to stay up to date.
I want to stress out that I don’t hold infowars in high regard, I just hold them in higher regard then CNN.

Ps. Regarding thy inquiry of the use of second person singular pronouns. I just like using the right pronouns, it limits confussion.

@rphb

Only a nutcase like you would compare InfoWars to CNN - it's like comparing and apple to the bubonic plague.

And you know perfectly well what quazimojojojo meant - and it's not out of context at all.

You compare an infamous conspiracy site run by a probably mentally unstable man to a serious news organization - it's completely ridiculous.

And for those who don't know what InfoWars look like - here's an introduction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-HUbdEAxo8

'@Nisse'_Hult
First of all, no, I don’t know what quazimojojojo meant, that is why I asked him for a little more context.
Second, yes I am comparing an infamous conspiracy site with a serious news organization, the conspiracy site in question being the Counterfeit News Network, CNN.
It is hard to find any station that better fit the descriptor “fake news”

But Infowars aren’t my only source of course. I listen to a wide range of youtube channels, as well as serious news networks such as Breitbart, Zerohedge and of course RT (Russia Today).

@rphb Alright lets put that aside for a moment because something far more important then the source of the leak has come up...

Do you really not realize what you just said? "The leak made it more democratic". Do you honestly not realize the danger about information manipulation? Controlling information, even if it is the truth still means you get to control peoples behavior because when and how you get the information can be just as important, if not more so then the actual information itself.

Saying something is more democratic when there might be a 3rd party influencing peoples votes is ludicrous.

'@Dasneko'
When the American people are purposefully held in the dark by their own politicians and the corporate controlled media, they are incapable of making a democratic decision as democracy requires:
And intelligent, virtues and informed populous.
Illuminating people with relevant true information, and no one have ever denied that the information was true, can only help them make a more informed choice, thereby making it more democratic.

Besides, I find it particularly funny that America, of all countries, accuses Russia for interfering in their election. And old joke goes like this: “why can’t a colour revolution happen in America? Answer because America is the only country without a US embassy”

@rphb This would all be true... If humans were rational beings. We are not.

As such what influences peoples opinions and decisions is not just "Intelligence" and "Information" but also emotion. Having people go against their own intelligence and information is actually not all that hard if you properly use emotion and its something politics abuse all the time.

Now lets go back to the Hillary leaks. What was the most important part of those leaks? The information that was shared or the emotional impact? That is why its so suspicious why it happened just before the election before emotions could settle down and you be left with just the information and intelligence instead of muddy the waters with emotions.

As such its an easy case to make that someone staged this to give the election to Trump which also means they staged it against the majority opinion of the population otherwise it would not matter WHEN they released it and in fact would be better if they did it earlier.

As for the origin of the claims it seams to the consensus of pretty much all the experts as well as foreign ones.

'@Dasneko'
First I have to repeat that I trust Wikileaks far more then I trust the US intelligence agencies, their purpose is to serve the deep state they are not nor have they ever been, there to serve the people.

And thou art right that emotions are very important in decision making, but I reject thy claim that relying on them are entirely irrational.

In order to, in a traditional sense, make a “rational judgment” we need complete information. It requires that the decision in question are very simple, such as picking the cheapest version of an identical product; but politics are never simple.
And when it comes to complex decisions it is impossible to get complete information and it is therefore irrational to try and make a “rational judgment” feelings and intuitions are a better guide to what is the best cause of action.
The leaks revealed critical details about Hillary’s character, they were important to bring up then, because it was the only way to stop her. The will of the people had been subverted already in the primaries.
Hillary was not the popular choice on the left; that was Bernie Sanders. She won only though a combination of manipulations, threats and use of the anti-democratic super-delegates that she had captured before the election even began.
The story that it was an inside leak, possibly from a Bernie or bust democrat, that was furious about the corruption, makes much more logical sense, then that it should have come from an uninvolved third party.


I know thou art bitter, bitter over the fact that a crony old women, didn’t sell as well as a charismatic black man like Obama, or a professional showman like Trump.
Bernie would have had a chance, but that was because he was burning with conviction, he was real; his public opinion wasn’t completely dependent on the latest polls and completely detached from his secret true opinions. He said what he meant. Some of it was wise, a lot of it was dumb, but all of it was sincere, and above all else that is what people want: sincerity.
The leaks exposed her true character, her complete insincerity, and that is really all that people needed to know.

I'm disappointed. No matter where I turn there is constantly some complaining about Trump. It's starting to feel like a propaganda-powered brainwash. I have no say in US politics, I'm from Finland, so this is getting so tiresome. I just want to enjoy comics / series / movies without any anti-Trump moaning, for crying out loud!

@Prinsessa
You're most definitely on the wrong site for that. Humon has always made a topic out of the quirks, prejudices and idiocies of the countries. And Trump has managed to produce a plethora of those in the past months, so of course it's going to be a topic here as well.

Also, if a crapton of people think someone is doing stupid shit, give room for the possibility that it is actually stupid shit instead of your first thought being "that's gotta be propaganda". When you hear hooves hitting the pavement, think of horses, not of zebras.

@Prinsessa

And I'd like to enjoy Humons comic's without people like you whining about what Humon draws but hey - we don't always get what we want, now do we?

@Nisse_Hult Just dont come to comments section if there is Brexit or Trump. Humon is obviously anti both. Plenty will bitch about those type of comic. And not because they support Brexit/Trump but because we read how those things are supposedly evil everyday on mainstream media. Trump burped? Probably creating bioweapons and etc...

@MiskisM

Well Humon is European and most Europeans are anti both Brexit and Trump, yes.
Basically the only one's that's for either or both belongs to the ring-wing or the far-right-wing politically.

It's not so much a question about anyone saying that either Brexit or Trump is evil really as that they're both really, really stupid...

Which they both are - based on all available facts.

Now you may not like those facts and prefer the far-rights "alternative facts" - but you can't really fault Humon, the majority of Europeans or the majority of media in the free world for sticking to actual facts, really.

After all - actual facts have worked rather good for mankind through the millennia.
"Alternative facts" - not so much.

@Nisse_Hult Right or far-right isn't always right. There are personalized issues as well. And one downside can in your mind downplay all good things. Like that Poland can use stronger pesticides that Lithuanians are forbidden by EU. Or if you are directly working in EU projects where 90% of cash are pocketed by rich. Or just promises of super-fast economic growth never came true (yes, not excatly EU fault, but we were promised that before referendum to join, one of main reason voting YES, not fulfiling it, so fuck EU). I actually say open borders, free trade etc. is good, but I see hundreds of thousands are pocketed outside my window, but can't do anything because it is good according EU regulations, I say FU EU.
And on Trump, as far as I see it is "Fuck Trump, Fuck Clinton, why couldnt you chose anyone else..."

@MiskisM

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that first part and I've never even been to Lithuania so I have no idea how that country is run or how things work there.

Poland shouldn't legally be allowed to use stronger pesticides then Lithuania since both countries are part of the EU that regulates that. Unless Poland got a special waiver from some specific regulations when they entered - in which case your beef is with the Lithuanian politicians who negotiated Lithuanias entry into the EU as they didn't get the same waiver.

But generally speaking not using strong pesticides is the better option. Poland might be gaining from it now, but they're actually poisoning their own soil with it and in the long run Lithuania will be better of by not doing that anyway,

Sweden got a special waiver for our culturally specific tobacco-product called "snus".
It's not allowed according to EU regulations as it's basically unknown in the rest of Europe but the Swedes negotiating the deal to join the EU knew that if Sweden didn't get a waiver it would be impossible to sell EU-membership to the Swedish public.

Finland's negotiators on the other hand never bothered to get the same waiver - despite the fact that rather a lot of Finns use "snus" as well (we where after all the same country for many centuries and share many of the same cultural traditions).

So as a consequence "snus" is now legal in Sweden but illegal in Finland - leading to a massive smuggling operation as tons of the stuff has to be brought in to supply Finnish customers.

It's completely idiotic of course, since "snus" have been used in Finland for centuries and nobody there has any real problem with it - it's just an EU-regulation that messes things up for them.

But the fault isn't actually the EU's, but the ignorant Finnish politicians who negotiated the deal to join the EU in the first place as they could have demanded the same waiver as Sweden too, but never bothered.

In large - the beefs you have with the EU are probably not really related to the EU as much as you think. But it's a common theme by both ordinary citizens and politicians alike to blame the EU for everything instead of asking what the nations own politicians have actually done.

I can tell you for a fact that Lithuania is a net beneficiary from the EU, so you're actually receiving more in support then your paying in to be a member.
So saying "Fuck EU" is basically turning down free money.
Which you're perfectly entitled to do of course, but it doesn't seem like a very smart idea.

@Nisse_Hult Problem with that money is that most people don't get any. It is because you have to have money to get EU money. Small and middle sized business dont have that much cash, and rule is that you buy equipment or build something or do something with your money first and get some back almost a year latter... Big companies gets millions but refuse to rise wage for workers (usually minimum). So average worker dont see that money...

@Nisse_Hult Please don't be shocked, but I think I love you. :-)

@KimOnClinton

Haha! :-D

No worry's - it's a nice change from the constant hate I get from the Trump-bots here... ;-)

@Prinsessa Oh yes, I *know*. I mean, seriously, he’s *only* a self-serving, impulsive twit with command over one of the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet. He’s *only* in a position to single-handedly scuttle years of efforts to reduce climate change. Why should anyone outside the U.S. care about any of that?

That awkward moment when Sister America is the smart one.

@katfairy
I'm pretty sure that she's the smart one since brother-murica got orange skin

@Flamarus I'm pretty sure she was already the smart one long before that. Remember the"God hates you Sweden"? Ok frankly bro and sis America we both pretty dumb there but...