Bwaaahahahaha! You fool. An over 35 year old clip of Biden being tough on crime is what you’ve got? Quit now. 😂

At that time Trump was publicly calling for the lynching death of 5 boys who were known to be innocent of all the charges against them, he still is. He had recently paid out millions in fines for racist redlining at his NY properties. Way to remind us of the public lynching supporting racist he is.
For a long time after this, Trump supported the democrats and these same drug policies.

Do you not know your party STILL wants MORE mandatory sentencing and MORE disparity between crack and cocaine….you actually think Don Jr shouldn’t ever be prosecuted for his blatant current full blown cocaine addiction despite it being obvious he was high as a kite as he did government business, but Hunter should get life for recovering from a private crack addiction 5 years ago (past the 3 year statute of limitations). 😂

Biden said jail for Hunter too…if he had been CAUGHT with the crack or if he had refused treatment in 2019…or if he’s convicted of a crime with a prison sentence.

He said all this about mandatory sentencing well over 30 years ago when the pitfalls of mandatory sentencing and underlying racism of considering crack different from cocaine weren’t as obvious.
Yes, his support of mandatory sentencing and different sentences for crack than for cocaine was misguided in hindsight. At the time the Regan CIA’s responsibility for flooding the inner cities with crack and causing the epidemic of crackheads wasn’t understood, but the damage it was doing was.

Dark Brandon has done not one thing to keep Hunter out of jail. Not a word of protest, no interference whatsoever. Rant and cry all you like, no one has presented a single word of evidence indicating he has. Not even the fake whistleblower actors the GOP paid to testify. 😂
You cannot say the same for Trumps or the Trump administration, which pardoned dozens of its own members for committing serious crimes against America and We The People for Trump and then were set free by decree.

Keep whining and crying Bobby boy. Every MAGA tear gives Dark Brandon more power, makes Trump weaker and sadder, and makes your friends see you as weak and someone to be cuckolded. Better keep an eye on your wife and kids, they think you’re a loser and a nutjob, and may be out the door already just like Melania.

Enjoy upcoming indictment 5, 6, and 7!
Enjoy the next 2 years of public trials with discovery exposing more disgusting, abusive, illegal subversion of the government by MAGA, more blatant lies they sold you, more avoidable deaths caused by divisive policies, and always more and worse debauchery. 😂 😂 😂

I’ve always thought it was a horrific decision, but not at all because of the immediate effects or massive death and destruction they caused in Japan….they fucked around and found out and deserved everything they got (and I was unaware the Russian Manchurian offensive timing, but it’s even more reason to not drop a second bomb or even a first if we knew it was coming).

I think it was horrific because we had no idea what the long term effects of even minimal fallout might be, and in fall/winter the jet stream runs from Japan directly to the highly populated West coast (which we knew well thanks to balloon bombs), so some portion of the fallout was guaranteed to fall on millions of US citizens. We lucked out that it wasn’t deadly a year later, and didn’t cause horrible birth defects with near zero exposure…we had no concrete idea at the time though just guesses, and still don’t have a clear idea of how much it contributed to higher cancer rates in the US.

Keep in mind, we had no idea what discussions the Japanese were having amongst themselves , so no idea how effective our bombs nor the Manchurian offensive were at persuading them to surrender. Hindsight is 2020, but at the time we were flying blind.

The uncertain risk there of possibly killing millions of ourselves or gimping or sterilizing or even Cronenberging entire future generations for the comparatively minimal convenience of not using conventional bombs, to me, is no where near worth it. There were just too many unanswered questions about too many factors. I’m sure the soldiers fighting at the time would feel differently.

*promote the history lesson, learned some new stuff!

Wow. There seem to be a lot of things wrong with that technique: I watched it thinking, "what would I have done differently?" Answer: he saved the child, in real time, without the benefit of hindsight, without any experience; I haven't.

@ant, is this a dupe of your own (dead?) Post?
https://videosift.com/video/South-Park-S14E11-Clip-Coon-2-Hindsight-We-re-Sorry-BP

15:05-15:30: you tell Mr and Mrs Front-Porch that your loonie of 1871 cannot be compared to your loonie of 2013 (year of this interview). You went off the gold standard in '33, you abandoned the peg in '70, and your currency has been free-floating ever since. Yes, the ratio of debt to GDP has some importance, but so does the nature of your currency. Just look at Greece and Japan, where the former uses a foreign currency and the latter uses its own, sovereign, free-floating currency.

Pay back the national debt -- have you thought that through?

First, the Bank of Canada is the monopolist currency issuer for the loonie, so explain to me in detail just how the issuer of the currency is supposed to borrow the currency from someone else? If you're the issuer of the currency, you spend it into existence, and use taxation as a means to create demand for your currency, and to free resources for the government to acquire, because you can only ever buy what is for sale.

Second, every government bond is someone else's asset. An interest-bearing asset. A very safe asset, in the case of Canada, the US, the UK, Japan, etc. "Paying back the debt" means putting a bullet into just about every pension fund in the world that doesn't rely exlusively on private equity or other sorts of volatile toilet paper.

There's a distributional issue with these bonds (they are concentrated in the hands of the non-working class, aka the rich), no doubt about it. But most of the other issues are strictly political, not economical.

What if the interest rate rises 1%? The central bank can lower the interest rate to whatever it damn well pleases, because nobody can ever outbid the currency issuer in its own currency. Remember, the central banks were the banks of the treasuries. The whole notion of an independent central bank was introduced to stop these pesky leftists from spending resources on plebs. That's why central banks were often removed from democratic control and handed over to conservative bankers. If the Treasury wants an interest rate of 2% on its bonds, it tells its central bank to buy any excess that haven't been auctioned off at this rate. End of story.

What if the market stops buying government bonds? Then the central bank buys the whole lot. However, government bonds are safe assets, and regulations demand a certain percentage of safe assets in certain portfolios, so there is always demand for the bonds. Just look at the German Bundesanleihen. You get negative real rates on 10 year bonds, and they are still in very high demand. It's a safe asset in a world of shitty private equity vaporware.

But, but.... inflation! Right, the hyperinflation of 2006 is still right around the corner. Just like Japan hasn't been stuck near deflation for two decades, and all the QE by the BoE and the ECB has thrown both the UK and the Eurozone into double-digit inflation territory. Not! None of these economies are running near maximum capacity/full employment, and very little actual spending (the scary, scary "fiscal policy") has been done.

But I'm going off track here, so.... yeah, you can pay back your public debt. Just be very aware of what exactly that entails.

As for the poster-child Latvia: >10% of the population left the country.

Here's a different poster-child instead, with the hindsight of another 4 years of austerity in Europe after this interview: Portugal. The Portuguese government told Master of Coin Schäube to take a hike, and they are now in better shape than the countries who just keep on slashing.

On a different note: Marx was wrong about the proletariat. Treating them like shit doesn't make them rebellious, it makes them lethargic. Otherwise goons like Mario Rajoy would have had their comeuppance by now.

PS: Blyth's book on Austerity is an absolute must-read for anyone interested in its history or its current effects in particularly the Eurozone.

In retrospect, this seems like such an obvious move, I had basically assumed that was going to be the structure of the movie from watching the trailer.

As nerdwriter points out though, it's easy to to say that with the benefit of hindsight.

Most airliners have wings designed to be used in low transsonic. They can't effectively go faster. They would literally lose lift if they went faster. Their wing shape is made to only delay the onset of shockwaves on top of the wing (flat-ish top), allowing it to safely creep closer to mach1 than otherwise, but not to operate within/past mach1.

Fan/propeller blades themselves are also mach limited.
(They can be designed to be supersonic, but then you end up with something like this... which in hindsight nobody wants : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H)
A subsonic airfoil in a fan/propeller, operating near/at supersonic speed, loses the ability to move/redirect air, due to shockwave disruption of the airflow.

Fans/propellers with subsonic blades that spin at subsonic speeds are effectively speed limited. They lose efficiency above ~500 mph, where they begin to stop generating thrust as they travel faster. Their pitch has to increase higher and higher, until they are no longer much of an airscrew and more of a 'feathered' configuration.

Supersonic jet engines use intake devices (such as shock cones) to decelerate incoming air to subsonic speeds, so the compressor (itself a fan, i.e. a highly multi bladed propeller) can operate on that air to compress it and feed the engine combustion chambers.
Airliners have no intake devices to decelerate incoming air, and they would lose engine compression when entering near mach1 speeds.

Furthermore, their bypass fans (which are glorified propellers) would stop providing thrust.

You would need to design different planes (like the concorde). You can't just throttle up a modern airliner and go faster [than X limit] - like you can in a modern car.

-scheherazade

"Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils...."

I beg your pardon Bill? What part of lesser of two evils was an endorsement for Trump?

If one were to describe Hillary as the lesser evil, would that not effectively be an endorsement? The underlying inference being that Trump was the greater of the two evils surely?

I think I'll just chalk that one up as a brain fart and assume he said it bass aackwards.

Though lets not forget Mrs Sandwitch would have given us TPP and the Syrian no fly zone.

Genuinely struggling to call it between who would have been most disastrous.

Trump was probably worse for America, I suspect Clinton might have been worse for the rest of the world. Not that it matters what any of us think in hindsight.

& yes @LiquidDrift it clearly isn't an actual Muslim ban! The fact that the majority of the worlds Muslim population is not affected by it should probably have been a big clue.

I guess though, given Trumps rhetoric, people can be forgiven for seeing it that way.

But yes it's a list of seven countries compiled by Obamas administration for being hotbeds of terrorism (if not before being bombed, certainly after). Not even close to banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Probably useless and needlessly divisive, but the man does need to at least appear to be fulfilling his campaign promises.

I certainly don't think the Nazi comparisons are at all helpful. There's no shortage of genuine things to attack the man on, hysterical fabrications just make him look right.

You know you're on shaky ground when Piers Morgan is the voice of reason

Maybe he has Asperger syndrome. His strange obsession with the details of his successes reminds me of highly successful autistic people that I've known or worked with. Difficult to even talk to or be friends with at times due to the successes creating hypomania that ranges to extreme megalomania. One of my old friends and coworkers who continues to do great things, calmed down once he was diagnosed and faced the reality of his behavior. Oh "The Donald" you need to see a legit therapist, buddy. All that self denial and lack of personal insight EVEN in hindsight, denying reality.

@enoch,

I don't have any opinion on what Hedges says because I didn't take the time to listen to him...

Here was my bigger take away, an article posted by RT that is criticising negative press for Russia immediately gets filtered into my 99% likely hood of being misleading, either by outright lies or more often lies of omission.

Now, that filter got bypassed a bit seeing a recommendation from someone I deemed thoughtful on things. So, I went and did a 5 second google on the subject and found red flags immediately, so then I stopped again.

And Noam Chomsky has fallen off the rails IMHO. He's never going to lie, and he is incredibly intelligent, well reasoned and thoroughly knowledgeable. The catch is he is also biased in the sense of presenting everything he says over the last decade plus through the filter of American exceptionalism. He'll present mountains of accurate and compelling evidence of everything wrong about American foreign policy and the horrible impacts it has all around the world. Trouble is, he'll maybe give 2 sentences on the pre-American period or the alternative of American inaction.

In fact, as I wrote this I was going to blindly espouse that Chomsky's world view would council in favour of Clinton's inaction on Rwanda even with full hindsight. That prompted me to google for Chomsky's actual opinion on it, which led immediately to the fact that Chomsky wrote the forward for a book denying that the victims of Rwandan genocide were Tutsi but instead that they were in fact it's architects...

Just for the record.... the snowboarder shouldn't have ridden that line. Sure, he had an ABS backpack... great, but he didn't read the terrain.

As easy as it is to criticise in hindsight there were plenty of signs that he should have read (recent natural avalanche activity, convex rollover, the Avalanche Canada report) that should have said "stay away".

I'm not trying to make myself sound smarter than this guy. I still consider myself very much a beginner in the backcountry, so I take as much care as possible, including knowing and trusting the guys I ride with.

Bottom line: you should be looking for reasons NOT to go.

@MilkmanDan

I don't like the notion of free super delegates but they didn't swing the primary. If they were taken out of the equation, Hilary still had a majority. Party favouritism and a media sense of inevitability probably did though.

The main conclusion I drew from the result is that in dire economic times, people will hold their nose and vote their perceived economic interests above anything else. I mean Clinton got 65% of Latinos vs. Obama's 71% in 2012 - Trump got a larger share than Romney. In most of the battleground states Clinton only won 50-55% of women.

Tack onto this the insider vs. outsider narrative, and the desire for a 'change' from government policy associated with Obama / Democrats, and you have a the holy trifecta. In hindsight it's easy to see going after Trump's character was a distraction.

If the media used such terms it would encourage widespread racism and vigilante-ism against a whole group of people that don't deserve it, or have anything to do with it.
By not using Islam or Muslim in their descriptions of these attacks, the media is practicing a good deal of social-responsibility, because hindsight teaches us what happens when you place entire groups of people under the umbrella defined by a few.

We should just use "angry person" as a synonym for "terrorist", and understand that Western culture is an offense to the rest of the world, and needs to change. If you don't think your culture needs to change, look at your politics, look at your economy, look at your communities, and consider that all this violence might actually be in response to the same things you're mad at yourself.

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.