So you are really basing this all off of the notion you THINK Trump lied to get elected. Lets just assume for a second he did, not that I do or don't think so, but lets just ASSUME he did...

What was on the other side of the ballot? Pure-as-the-driven-snow candidate HRC? Madam email cover-up? The Queen of Pay-for-Play? The DEFINITION of currupt politicians?

So yes, Glass Houses...

Please expand, because while I can see that he's picking and choosing some easy targets for criticism (over the top SJW stuff) that may not be representative of the at-large "Progressive" agenda, nothing really jumped out at me as a "straw man" argument.

I'm a somewhat conservative-leaning person (at least on issues that I think should be in the realm of government), but I feel like I have a legitimate beef with some of what the party that is "supposed" to cater to conservatives actually does in government; what the GOP seems to present as its "platform".

This guy is a liberal-leaning person who feels like he has a legitimate beef with some of what his party thinks their platform should be. And I tend to agree with a lot of what he's saying.

And I would hope that even if I didn't agree with anything that he was saying, I'd be all for protecting his right to say his piece. Some people/groups test our patience for that, like the Westboro Baptist Church -- ostensibly a crazy right-wing organization that just wants to get their message (of hate and bigotry) out there. But in reality they are just a bunch of con men who stir up trouble in order to provoke violent or other responses that they can start litigation over. The point is, there are good ways and bad ways to deal with idiots like that.

Threats to free speech from the other side of spectrum are much more subtle, and therefore perhaps more insidious and dangerous. For example, at about 3:00 in the video where he lists "racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, and islamophobia" as "meaningless buzzwords". For many people, those words are NOT meaningless, but real, concrete problems that they actually have to face in their lives. Problems many orders of magnitude more significant and weighty than any of the minutia that can make or ruin our average day. Unfortunately, those words do tend to carry a lot less weight when they are bandied about willy-nilly every time we disagree with someone for any reason.

I guess, we all really do have more things in common with each other than things that separate us from each other. The frequent and extreme factionalizing and partisanship today seems very counter productive. And there's plenty of blame for that to go around.

It's that balance between decent people and arseholes - it's always favourable to the arseholes.

In politics or any serious consideration, if an opportunist cheats there will be a small scandal - but it's to be expected of them, time passes and eventually they're credited for their ingenuity and resourcefulness. If a decent person cheats once, it can be held against them forever, a lifelong symbol of moral bankruptcy.

That's the difference between an arsehole and a decent person. Both types of people have some kind of moral balance, with "good" on one side of the see-saw and "bad" on the other side. The problem is, arseholes move the pivot closer to the "good" side when they're talking about someone virtuous - any bad counts double.

Before i get accused of insulting some group or other, the left and right and centre all have arseholes, it applies to every group. If someone wants to say that I'm biased, and "arseholes" say the exact same thing about me, only i'm the arsehole. Well i can certainly consider that, but if we were to search through all news items in the western world to see how the 'virtuous' are held to account compared to the 'non-virtuous', does anyone doubt which way that would go? For whatever agreed definition of virtuous.

I think it's about time the left started fighting dirty, personally. Go ahead and punch a nazi - i won't criticise you for violence. The little bastard wouldn't care if one of his mates punched me.

If something bad happens to them, they want you to moralise. If something bad happens to you, lol you're a fucking snowflake.

Back in 2015, he earned the nickname "Putin's American Toady" over the Ukraine invasion.

I think MAYBE you should hear the other side of the story before deciding.

If you want the 2015 version of that debate, you can look here http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/the-west-vs-russia (feel free to sift the video, I don't have time to do it now.)

Not that I support one or the other side of this retarded argument...

But in Aus, something like 1 in 3000 Australians of Lebanese descent were accused (not convicted) of being involved in terrorist planning/actions etc. And Australians lost their shit about it.

1 in 20 of Australian Catholic clergy have been convicted of child molestation, which closely matches a US study of 107,000 clergy turning up 1 in 24 odd. No one seemed particularly perturbed...

Pro tip: The west is more concerned about muslims/arabic types because they're brown and strange (to us), even though your child is far more likely to be molested by a pedo than he/she is to be killed in a terror attack. Though I hate using it, seems like a "won't some one think of the children moment".

Hrm, wonder if you can deport catholics back to the Vatican...

*promote the eve of The Greatest [shit]Show on Earth! Hopefully see [most of] ya'll on the other side *fear

That sound he made of the sound of the event that they measured sends shivers down my spine. When I brokethrough to the "other side" that was the sound I heard and it felt like being sucked through a blackhole with an unimaginable force that broke reality completely apart and into a new one.

Thank you @enoch, I was trying to figure a way of replying on how there isn't a denial that a minority of Muslims believe in suicide bombing, but that it isn't as widespread and exclusive to Islam as the far right make it out to be. You summed it up pretty well.

I was also going to add all the abortion clinic bombings and the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bombing... all Christian and being done in the name of Christ. Then in Ireland/UK with the IRA... though that one isn't just religion and is more political (though again, many of those political differences has to do with worshiping Christ the wrong way).

There are militant Buddhist too, who do very violent and aggressive acts against others.

And there are plenty on the left who decry Islam, look at Sam Harris by example who argues the danger of Islam a great deal.

I agree, that we need to address the underlying political issues... and sometimes just need to let things go. There is a big civil war going on the middle east between denominations of Islam, and we are picking a side, which in turn makes us a target of the other side. We ignore the fact that the goal of terrorist groups is to make it an "us vs them" world, so that it makes it easier to recruit potentially radicalizeable people. I hear Christians bemoan how Christianity must be true because of all the persecution, proves Satan is trying to push Christianity down, but then they have zero empathy for how it must feel for a Muslim, and the persecution they feel, and how that must make them feel they are the right one for the same exact reasoning.

The fact so many Christians are not only willing, but calling for a war, for a new Crusade basically, shows that Christians are just as easily radicalized. They may not be strapping bombs to their chests yet, but I'd guess if they were in a Muslim country and felt they were being repressed, then I'd wager they'd be more than willing to engage in suicide bombs.

The pint being, yes, some Muslims do engage in suicide bombs, but it isn't just them. Christians have done it plenty in the past, and will undoubtedly return to it again, especially as the more radicalized and violent portion of them become normalized here in the US thanks to the election of Trump who encouraged them all through his campaign.

I do agree that unilateral disarmament is a difficult thing to achieve, but there are other arguments as to why it should be pursued. I am sure we agree on a lot of things on this subject, but let me at least put the other side out there:

1. America as the over achieving nation in the world has a duty to lead by example. How can the country with the largest nuclear arsenal expect other countries to start the process that we all signed up to? Hey France, why didn't you get rid of your 87 nukes? Well America, why haven't you touched that pile of 500? (making up numbers here to illustrate the point)

2. The US isn't worried about Best Korea nuking them because they would need a staging platform and a functional ballistic missile. They can be launched from subs, but NK isn't really your worry there. The most developed nations are the concern, and if you could get an agreement it could happen, with peacekeepers and mutually open inspections, and pressure on smaller countries to abide or be trade embargoed to stop them (which the west does/has done already). Unlikely as things are right now, i agree.

3. We have ageing equipment housing extremely dangerous explosives. They require a huge amount of maintenance and whatnot, costing billions. The UK has to replace their system soon to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. Imagine what kind of alternative modern anti-nuclear defence system we could develop using all that money and all our technology? That way we could be safe from nukes without using nukes and it would cost less in the long run.

Also if you claim your weapons as part of a defence, it's a bit of a giveaway that you're bullshitting if you then go off around the world antagonising other countries, knowing that they can't really fight back. So i think in fairness we should crack open that self-defence argument and see what percentage of it is referring to "a good offence".

Having said all that, binning all the US nukes overnight wouldn't be a great idea. The UK would be less of a target and safer without nukes imo, but the US would probably make the world a lot safer just by having less.

Let's be honest here, the amount of nukes we have is preposterous. No one could possibly have any reason to use that many, the potential for absolute worldwide devastation is far too high to need that many - you could potentially finish the world off in a nuclear winter, according to the average figures given, in about 100 'small' nukes. Not 100 each per country, but 100 total worldwide.

And remember, that doesn't mean you can use 90 and be safe. The figure 100 was enough to likely cause a global famine by causing temperature drops leading to crop failures. That doesn't account for extinction of animals and the devastation of the natural balance (which would lead to our eventual extinction) which can be wildly unpredictable. You could shoot 40 at a country, win the conflict, and cause the starvation of millions+ in your own (and other) countries for the next 20 odd years..... or worse.

@newtboy I have tried to explain that I like living at home, not in prison, so yes, in a situation in which I did not genuinely fear grave bodily harm I would try to avoid a disproportionately violent response. That's what the law requires. It would not matter whether the irritant in question were male, female, or indeterminate.

No one is ever "legally justified in killing" someone else, unless perhaps they are an executioner. Deadly force in self defense is sometimes allowed in order to stop an attack, but must cease as soon as the threat is neutralized.

Racist taunts have been alleged, so have homophobic taunts on the other side. It's hard to say if anyone is telling the truth.

Never heard of him before now, but even in Chinese history records of his voyages were scattered or omitted, due in part possibly because his voyages went against the wishes of a previous ruler. He made seven voyages between 1405 and 1433, the Wikipedia article mentions nothing about colonization efforts so that's probably why East Africa doesn't speak Chinese.
On the other side we have Christopher Columbus who was in all the history books here in America and was regularly celebrated. Until we got more honest with our history, now it's Indigenous People's Day in many places (That Italian Asshole Day just doesn't look as good on a calendar I guess).
If the Chinese had taken over the world then maybe we would be reading about someone else discovering the Americas (and probably called something else too) but as it stands Europeans did and that's who winds up in the history books.

So European culture is to blame for all this? You 'll have to be more specific, what have the Europeans done that nobody else have managed to do?

As far Johansson's role in the movie goes, I can take her or leave her really, they could have cast an Asian action star and I would have been fine with that. But the choice of Johansson was less about nerds like me and more about getting everyone else into the theater. Oh, and I think Idris Elba would make an awesome James Bond, just sayin.

These comments are hardly written as if they are your "opinion".

"Cant take him seriously anyone since I realized he deletes comments that use facts to disprove him or expose his hypocrisy."

and

"Too many cases to list. I was actually a fan of him once, but then, after a few cases, realized he only takes sources that fit his agenda and does never look at the other side of the coin. He ignores other sources and facts completely. And if you dare to bring that up, or even ask why, your comment gets deleted. Politics, science, demographics, history, etc. Hes cherry picking and think people dont check for themselves."

I would be totally interested (and why I'd like you to bother) to know if he is being deceitful as ive never heard this about him. If you are going to make accusations like these you should probably show us what you know (evidence). Don't you think?

Too many cases to list. I was actually a fan of him once, but then, after a few cases, realized he only takes sources that fit his agenda and does never look at the other side of the coin. He ignores other sources and facts completely. And if you dare to bring that up, or even ask why, your comment gets deleted. Politics, science, demographics, history, etc. Hes cherry picking and think people dont check for themselves.

@bobknight33 --

I agree with @Sagemind that it was not technically a dupe, but pretty close. I was one of the upvotes on your other one.

I think there are 3 reasons why this submission got more votes. In order of importance:

1) This one was timely. The fact that yours was posted 2 weeks ago makes Moore's impressively accurate prediction all the more evident, but the polling, media, and "experts" were telling people it was going to be a landslide for Hillary. Right up until later on election night when it started looking like Florida could flip. Anyway, people didn't want to hear it then, but they are rightly impressed now that his "crackpot" prediction panned out so perfectly.

2) Being video helps it capture the context of what Moore was actually saying a little bit better than yours did. As audio only in yours, I was struggling to reconcile what I was hearing with Moore's political views. This makes it more clear that he is speaking from the perspective of those disenchanted voters, not his own personal opinion. Not as important as #1 up there, but I think this is a legitimate item that at least in part explains the vote disparity in the two submissions.

3) The Sift as a site/community trends more to the left than the US in general, and there's a lot of ire directed at you, personally, for being one of the few vocal people on the other side here. I think it is fantastic that you're here, keeping the conversation from being largely/completely one-sided.

...But, being that voice means that you're going to get some downvotes and have some of your worthy submissions not get as much attention as if they were sifted by anyone else. I'm sure that accounts for a non-negligible portion of the current 5:43 upvote ratio between the two sifts, which may be unfortunate but perhaps isn't surprising?

Quote from the YT comments I found myself agreeing with:

"Here's a few things the US forces aren't doing: Burning people alive for witchcraft, keeping sex slaves, beheading journalists, kidnapping people for ransom, forcing 1/2 of the population to cover their bodies and effectively live in bags, denying education to women, throwing homosexuals off buildings, burying people so only their head is exposed and stoning them for adultery, suicide bombing their own children to get to one US soldier, denying that the holocaust existed, and the list goes on. All of the horrible things I've listed are however practiced by the people that the US, and allied nations are fighting. So my questions are:1. Why are we holding the US army to such a high moral standard, yet we give a free pass to enemies, who are doing far, far, far worse, with the only thing stopping them from doing even worse being that they aren't as well equipped or trained as the US armed forces. If we are appalled at what the allied armies are doing, then we should be doubly appalled at what the other side is doing. Otherwise we have a double standard. 2.Why did this video single out the US? When quite a lot of the western world is involved in these conflicts. This is why I stopped being a leftie. Because the left is regressing. The leftists are targeting the high end of morality instead of trying to establishing a baseline of ethical behavior which to work from."