Blame presumes guilt. There's no guilt in voting for your interests, even if others don't understand them.

Reasons for those voting decisions are interesting, but also very hard to get since the media ignores everything between the coasts, and even the diverse internet is so full of filter bubbles that you're basically funneled straight into echo chambers. At least on my end, the Silicon Valley/Hollywood culture is drowning out everything else -- and I'm a commie outsider who doesn't give a shit about celebrities or "save zones".

That said, the election is just the most recent culmination of an ongoing, decades-long development. But that's beyond the point, so...

Populism trumps business as usual if business as usual leads to Detroit, Cleveland and Camden. Or the rural areas on the coast of Louisiana, which were hit much harder than New Orleans and still look worse than Chernobyl, 11 years after the fact.

So the question is: did you a) fail to provide an alternative, b) fail to make a convincing case for that alternative, c) decide against trying to convince those that think differently, or d) not even realize that not everybody shares your perception of reality.

Given the tone of the reactions, the collective damnation of Trump voters as (insert any insult in the book), I'm thinking that d) is a much bigger issue than anyone is willing to admit.

In short, I blame George R. R. Martin. If he had published The Winds of Winter by now, all would be well.

As a layman observer, I would argue the root of problems with segregated neighbourhoods, schools and racism in general is inequality. I suspect racism is primarily driven not by some kind of eugenic notion of superiority as in the past, but simply the perception that black people are on more likely to be involved in criminal behaviour because they are on average poorer.

Until you take redistributive actions to give disadvantaged people (and those policies can simply target people in poverty, not by race) more opportunities, the imbalance in wealth / income will persist, and so will the bias towards living in separate suburbs, sending children to separate schools not to mention employment biases. As it is, there is a regressive, vicious cycle of poorer education, weaker job prospects leading people into the informal / illegal economy.

See, the important Clinton here is Hillary. Despite your hope and your ignorant conflations, Bill is not running for the presidency. Hillary Clinton is just as moral as Reagan and Romney. (Period, but also specifically with respect to sexual indiscretions. She has been faithful. Don't take that away from her just because she's a woman.)

And with respect to the rape allegations, it's disingenuous to presume they're true. Bill Clinton was accused of rape, yes. But no charges were brought against him. Indeed, one of the women who accused him signed an affidavit saying that she was lying about the accusation and then later (now) wants to rescind her affidavit. Until there are charges it's just more bullshit to slander the Clintons.

(Trump, on the other hand, is actually facing charges soon regarding the rape of an underage girl.)

And if you think that a woman standing by her man when he's accused of rape isn't a beautiful thing, well, I would question your humanity. If Hillary hadn't stood by Bill it would have reflected poorly on him. That she did tips the scales in the other direction. Also, it reflects well upon her. (I am sure Melania will stand by Trump during his trial and that will speak well to both of them.)

Again, it comes down to allegations vs. facts. Your whole characterization of the Clintons is based on allegations. The right's characterization of the Clintons is based on allegations. All of the characterizations come down to histrionic allegations. The things that are facts that they've done wrong they've apologized for. Hillary apologized for using a personal e-mail server, despite the fact that it was common practice for people to use personal e-mail servers in the 2000's. Hillary has apologized for the mistake at Benghazi, despite the fact that many similar attacks happened under Bush/Cheney's watch. The allegations of 'voter fraud' in the Democratic primary are bad, but even Hillary's opposition sided with her in the end.

And there's really nothing else propping up the perception that Hillary is bad in any way other than these allegations. It's just a matter of the right's echo chamber (including you) repeating it over and over again, which anybody can see is totally devoid of substantive reason. People 'feel' like Hillary is bad, but there's nothing there to show it.

It is because there is indeed, nothing there.

But with respect to Trump he has shown time and time again that he is unfit for any office, that he will take personal advantage of any power given to him. He continues to act in a way antithetical to the position he seeks. They say that you should dress for the position you seek. If the position of the Presidency requires one to wear a button down shirt and nice slacks Trump is a drunk, dirty, smelly bum wearing a trenchcoat, running down the street with no self control, yelling about how great Putin and Kim Jong Il are, grabbing whatever pussy he can find.

This admission of sexual assault is just the final nail in the coffin for him. (Or perhaps just the latest final nail.) To speak of sexual assault as anything other than the dictionary definition of being unfit to be president is just wrong.

I cannot possibly imagine how hard it is for him to rebuild his body at his age. I am stoked to see him do so, but knowing what time does to humans, along with our perception of self....

Edit- It's funny to see videos like this and juxtapose them with modern perception. How we're still fawning over this guy at his age and his shape, and that's not to disrespect him in the least. Just for a moment, though, I considered seeing a similar, motivational-video of a 60 year old woman doing her best to regain her socially-ingrained perception of sexual-value, and, just... ugh.

At that point, I'd rather just see a tired, old Arnold, looking his age, and raising his hand in victory and self-appreciation for who he is today.

I agree with you and don't hate Nazis. I hate murderers though, so I hate many of the Nazis but not all of them. Some Nazis helped Jews escape their fate and if it were not for them, some of those people would not be alive today. Disagree with me all you want, I couldn't believe otherwise.

In fact, even some of the mass murderers, the Einsatzgruppen, the meticulous destroyers of entire populations throughout Eastern Europe showed signs of their shame and guilt. When someone feels shame and guilt, that is a sign of their humanity which begs for love and forgiveness.

That doesn't excuse the horrors that they contributed to, but it also shows that they were not merely bogeymen and were themselves victims.

Now, it's very human for you to disagree with my sentiments on this topic out of love and honor for those who were unjustly murdered in this life -- we are a passionate species and it is very right to feel anger towards murderers -- but if an actual loving god (not a torturing one) were to exist, it would forgive and love for the same reasons. That's my belief and I sleep well at night for having it. Otherwise, I would simply be filled with anger and hate for the people who have caused me pain in MY actual life.

Nazis never did a goddamn thing to me directly so it's only conceptual hate that I can feel towards them. But there are people who existed side by side with me who have done me great harm -- and I even forgive and love those people who directly violated my trust. People MUST forgive those that have harmed them in order to move forward with their lives, by accepting their humanity, which although flawed, is still a mammalian emotional being, neocortex enabled and desiring compassion.

Another interesting conceptual form of love is when the family of murder victims forgive the convicted killers who harmed their own family. Isn't that interesting that some people are willing to not hate murderers of their own family members? Or when George Wallace forgave the man who attempted to assassinate him? Sure, he was a born againer and the pro-segregationist who tried to deny black people from signing up for school with white kids, but he still had it in him to forgive and to love, and that to me says he too must be forgiven and loved, because a change occurred in him and his empathy manifested in new ways as his perceptions of mankind changed over time.

BULLSHIT. *waits for the jesus bomb* Oh, it was bullshit. Funny. Freaking Penn, you dick. lol!!!

Anyway, his first statement aside, isn't this how legit atheists have always thought? And by that I mean, atheists who practice what they preach and love other humans, as every mammal should. Shitting on belief systems but NEVER NEVER hating the actual person? That's how I function.

I always imagined it was simply the projections of the insecure haters of atheists that projected this perception that we hate Muslims. I never understood how atheism could mean anything other than love. That's why I became an atheist in the frickin' first place, because I realized God isn't loving if he could send people to hell. And from there it simply followed logically towards the absence of God.

I have friends from Malaysia and Iran who clearly CLEARLY have Islamic backgrounds -- but they're badass Americans and beyond that they're human goddamnit -- and I love them as much as I love my Jewish, Atheist, and Christian friends. I can't say that they aren't Muslim, because I don't want to assume anything and I don't want them to be in trouble if they aren't. But yeah, I love all my friends.

And you know what, I love bobknight and that piss flavoured cotton candy Trump thing, even though they both project hate onto us for being liberal. Honestly, I love you bob, and we aren't terrorists and neither is every Muslim. I love you -- even though you support America's terrorists, the police. And I love the police, despite my dislike of SOME (well, maybe MOST) of their views about the world. <3

Also, in regards to age... I'd say ayahuasca is definitely for older people, when I was in ceremony almost everyone was 30+. And it makes sense, it is definitely not just love and good vibes with some slight alterations to your normal perceptions

To add to that - Santo Diame considers taking ayahuasca "THE Work". They take it at church every weekend, including their kids (lol), they are very serious about it as an integral spiritual/religious tool.

In general, there's a pretty friendly rivalry between the two countries, mostly around sport (we beat them at rugby, they beat us at cricket).

But the countries are actually politically and culturally pretty close, and there's a real sense of comradeship in relation to shared military history (see ANZACs).

All that said, there are some genuine issues of contention, especially right now. The two countries both allow citizens of the other to live and work there. Given that Australia is the larger economy, this mostly means kiwis going to Aussie looking for work.

So there is a perception among some Australians that Kiwis are somehow both stealing their jobs and also lazy dole bludgers (hey, no one said bigots had to be internally consistent).

In fact, this is completely the opposite of reality. Australians who come to NZ are basically NZ citizens in all but name. They are entitled to unemplyoment benefit, whereas Kiwis in Australia do not have the same benefits.

There is also currently an issue around detention and deportation of Kiwis, where Kiwis in Australia (many of whom have lived most of their lives in Australia) who have been committed of crimes are being deported back to NZ after completing their sentences. This often means they are held in refugee-style detention centres while awaiting deportation and are being sent back to a country away from their families.

In this specific instance, I'm guessing it's because the kid in the video is of Maori or Polynesian descent.

Disclaimer: I'm an Irish guy living in NZ who spent two years in Sydney, so this is a slightly outsider take.

“What would you do if you found out that everything you know, everything you believe, everything you’ve been told since you were a child was a lie?"

"And not just any lie, but one carefully crafted, finely tuned, expertly executed, and deliberately designed with the express purpose of assuring you that wrong was right, that bad was good, and that violence was love."

"A lie powerful enough to manipulate you into taking part in horrific and barbaric acts that you’d otherwise find appalling. Powerful enough to wash blood from your hands; to alter your perception so severely that murder appears mundane and compassion becomes extreme.”-Emily Moran Barwick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLmIqdlomtuStFtMawXWLcH9Ia2TFFkDZ3&v=kUTgZ7s_hiw

Yes....that.

If I were black, I would certainly feel that the police are people to fear and avoid at all costs, not there to protect or serve me. It's incontrovertible that there is NOTHING a black man can do to be safe. There is no level of surrender, clear lack of arms, absolute lack of movement, or ANYTHING they can do to ensure they won't be 'mistaken' for a perpetrator and shot....usually shot dead. It's also clear and incontrovertible that, even when they've done absolutely nothing wrong, and the police agree they've done nothing wrong and they are in no way threatening, the police will still shoot them...and then not give them medical attention, in fact they will handcuff them and try to think of a charge they can make up to excuse their inexcusable deadly actions.
When it's a life or death situation, civilized behavior and respect for authority hardly outweigh a drive for self preservation....it does one no good to have been civilized if that causes one's death. It's for that reason that I say that I would never convict a black man of murdering a police officer...it's reasonable to think it would be self defense under any circumstance just because it was a black man and a police man, just as much as if it was an armed Klansman. They should not have to wait to be attacked before defending themselves, they don't have equipment or training to withstand an attack and respond, their only option is to shoot first if they want a chance to live, unlike police.
Clearly, that's not the situation in every instance, and not all cops are killers, but enough are that it's reasonable for a black man to assume any random officer may well act murderously, and so reasonable to protect one's self from them pre-emptively. That is a horrendous situation, but one I put squarely on the doorstep of the police, and it's up to them to change that perception with actions, not excuses and deflections. They have failed miserably thus far, which is why I have little sympathy for their recent losses. If you pick a fist fight and lose a tooth in the fight, that's YOUR fault....the same reasoning goes for gunfights, IMO.

There are a few things that do make me laugh at the ignorance though. He hasn't seen any postitive...at all...since the civil rights era...? Okay, little sensationalized...considering *Dash cams *More prosecutions *more black officers (I read one recount how in the 80s the force was so different that only white men could arrest white men in the city, that was probably the funniest example...) *more policies and training against racial bias... Ergo the problem. Mahar doesn't care what the police really do, only the perception of the television plugging points.

That's a big part of the perception problem. Typical cops doing typical cop stuff when they have good reason to do so just doesn't make it to us in any media form.

No, I actually try hard to not read ANY biased stuff on either side, since it's all time wasting propaganda with an agenda...but I understand why you might think that. That does mean I have not read much from Clinton's camp either, so it's no surprise I missed it.

Yes, I agree that many charges thrown don't hold water, but some do, some might, and many more appear to because of her dismissive way of addressing concerns. I do push back when I hear claims against her that are pure fantasy, I'm not a Sanders fan AND a lie fan, I'm a Sanders fan because I hate lies, even when they help my cause.
BUT
Because most people don't give her that much, it doesn't matter what reality is, she's thoroughly painted as a dishonest self serving windsock, and nothing is going to change that perception for the masses, and it's the perception that matters come election day. You can be sure the worst smear campaign ever is coming at her, and she can't stand up to it by being dismissive. She's already tied for most disliked candidate EVER!

No, I think they should go to a contested convention and calmly debate who is the better candidate to win, and nominate that candidate, like they normally would. I just think that candidate is obvious, and it's not the one the DNC is going to let win.
(EDIT: There's a reason that the person who's 1 delegate ahead doesn't just 'win', because that person might be unelectable even if they're the favorite. That's why the threshold for victory is way more than 1/2 +1)

I'm doing my best, by contradicting anyone who says it's over. It's not an easy road, but there is a road to his victory, and an easier road to that debate on who's better to both win, and to serve the voters. I contend that both answers are Sanders.

Yes, I think the world is in horrendous shape on nearly every front, and I want it to be different....I want it, and us, to be better. I think everyone should. If you don't continuously try to be better, you undoubtedly are getting worse.
I think of myself as a realist idealist. I want people to try to do the right thing, but I understand that not only can all people not agree what that right thing is, but that it's actually not the same for everyone, and sometimes one person's 'right thing' denies another person's 'right thing'.
I don't look for purity, but when it's presented, I don't turn away either. Purity is a rare commodity, one that should be cherished if found. I see it in Sanders.

I'd disagree with, " Of course, cocaine, amphetamines, benzodiazepines, alcohol and opiates also "cure" depression. So it's pretty complicated in practice."

Tryptamines have been known to combat depression when used correctly for a long time. They are non-addictive, you can't overdose and the positive effects are long lasting - due to experiencing what some call experiencing the "divine"- where the positive changes take place.

The false judgements of society are to blame for the misinformed perception of these compounds - when used responsibly.

@ahimsa

and now we move to stage two of the predictable vegan argument:

distinctions.


oh fuck me with a razor bladed dildo this is some tiring and facile shit.

look man,you are seriously missing my main point:
pretentious twattery and a morally and philosophically inconsistent stance.

so you can keep quoting anybody and everybody because it is apparent you really do not understand what you are quoting,and it is not adding anything to our discussion...at all.

maybe..
possibly..
just something to consider...
you approach expressing the values and benefits of being a vegan sans the self-righteousness,the pretension and condescension?

that maybe because YOU became a vegan for moral and ethical reasons,others may have come to it from other means and for other reasons,and allow those who are NOT vegan to come to their own conclusions and make their own choices?

and maybe not be so judgey mcjudgerface if they choose differently than you?

look man,we all do something that gives us the "feel goods".

some recycle obsessively,even though there is little evidence that actually makes a difference.

others drive a hybrid and feel that is their contribution,even though it is actually worse.

some will only buy organic and/or shop locally.(thats me btw)
and even though this brings some coin to the local farmers,taken on a whole it is barely a blip against the monster that is wal mart.

i have friends who do beach clean up every year,even though it gets destroyed within a month.

so we all try to do something that fits our perceptions of the world and how we can make it a better place.

and yes..if we ALL got together we could make a massive change in the current dynamics,not only locally but globally.

so i get it mate..i really do.

i guess what i am suggesting at it's core is this:
stop acting like a newly converted jehovahs witness who just wants us all to hear about your new buddy jesus.

i also think i should share that my long time girlfriend is vegan.
not your judgey,self righteous,pretenscious type vegan..but a vegan.

and that girl can't cook worth a damn.
which means that cooking falls on ME.
do i still eat meat?
yep,but not that often and rarely..raaarely red meat.
and to my girls credit she never gives me shit,i may get the upturned nose but never actual verbal shit.

red curry anyone?