If the media had more of this kind of stuff in the past few decades instead of sensationalist or partisan bullshit, we wouldn't be in a position to need it.

It's easy to call media fake - a lot of it has been for a very long time. We who watch and discuss politics videos here would be celebrating Sanders if he was on TV right now talking about how biased a lot of media was.

The left and the right have a lot that makes them different but essentially they want the same things - security, happiness, prosperity. They disagree on how to get those things and that's all ok, but we agree to a level playing field so that things like Hitler, Trump, etc. can't happen. The playing field has to be level for everyone or people get angry. When people get angry under a theocracy or dictatorship they revolt. When people get angry under democracy, they vote for populists.

We need to hope that the playing field can be levelled again. People aren't happy with a rigged system - crony capitalism, profits before people, corporate welfare, tax dodging...

You know how people were saying it should have been Bernie vs. Trump? Well, that's because ordinary people on the left and right saw unfairness everywhere.

The left weren't going to seriously mobilise for a wishy washy weathervane like Clinton. But the angry right had their ideal candidate and they DID seriously mobilise. The kind of mobilisation that has teeth? You only get that when people believe they've got the right guy.

In my opinion, an Ocean's Eleven style heist occurred some time ago involving, basically, businessmen. People who wanted money. The best way to make money was to be involved in politics. So some businessmen joined political parties, or donated money to them and demanded a few favours. A few politicians think, hey i could use some extra money, and make a few promises. This goes on for long, eventually business and politics become the same thing and policies are designed around business and profit.

People aren't happy, the system is rigged. Trump is the immediate problem, but concessions must be made by those with money and power or another Trump will happen. He is a symptom not the cause. Desperate people place desperate votes.

Yeah but there's always a murder at the funeral

Samantha Bee
stands tight at the knee,
squeezed close like she
needs an urgent wee.

It should concern people that sometime in the last 30 odd years of neocon rule, they gave themselves the ability to unilaterally cancel things they'd previously promised to do.

People need to put aside whether or not they think the policy being cancelled is good or bad and wonder whether it is good or bad that things may be cancelled so easily. They won't though - politics right now seems to be like going to a football match "HAHAHA YOU LOST, ENJOY NOT HAVING HEALTHCARE! ONE NIIIIIL, ONE NIIIIIIIIL!"

The fuck is going on? This IS an idiocracy right now - people care about how something sounds or what team they're on rather than what will improve the quality of life for people in future.. Surely that is the goal of society?!

I'm sure it's a problem, but why the hell hasn't he added latches and ledges to things to stop the worst of it?

I love how nazis use violent imagery and talk up the brutality all the time, but when they get punched in the face it's less boots on necks and more piss in pants.

Honestly, richard spencer helped dispel the illusion that these new nazis are anything to worry about when he bitched out after tasting some of the violence he enables. Reminds me of the Big Lebowski.

Donny: "Are they gonna hurt us Walter?"
Walter: "No Donny, these men are cowards."

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.

When Melissa McCarthy gets it right, she really gets it right. Some films lately have been disappointing, but The Heat is still one of my favourite buddy cop movies.

I think there are aspects of this that fall into the realm of philosophy.

I personally don't think we can ever have "The Truth" in that ultimate sense. Pretend for a minute that the SUVAT equations (the equations of motion) are completely accurate. I can drop a ball from a certain height and you can time it and we'll find to some degree of accuracy that the equations were right.

The ball and the floor didn't need to calculate anything. Whilst me and you sit there with a stopwatch technical manual, assorted tape measures to find the distance, expensive cameras to figure out when i dropped the ball..... Whilst we are tying down an uncertainty, the ball and floor have already done it.

When you get right down to it, we simply cannot know an exact time. We can never know an 'exact' anything, because now we need to discuss where the "ball" ends and where the "floor" begins on a molecular level. And no matter how much we agree, the uncertainty principle gets us in the end - we don't and can't know the exact location of fundamental particles. An "exact" anything ends up being a conceptual thing that we can't ever test.

But where i'm going with this is that we're kind of talking about the nature of understanding. We know the volume of a sphere if we know its radius, but how do we create the same sphere accurately? Our brains don't have a resolution, but the tools we use in reality do - reality itself quite possibly has a resolution. We think of minecraft as a blocky, low resolution simulation of an analogue reality. Similarly, i think maths is an 'analogue' (in that it can be "exact") simulation of a limited resolution reality - reality only looks analogue when you don't look very closely.

All that is to say, we DO understand the ball dropping and hitting the floor, but "exactness" is a thing that only exists in the act itself. The only thing left for us to decide is what we consider accurate enough.

Perhaps "god" wanted to know what would happen if he set off a big bang. He sat down, calculated it all out in the language of the gods (the language of perfection; maths) and realised that due to uncertainty, the only way to know exactly what would happen was for it to actually happen. (Douglas Adams?)

Classic whataboutery. Those protests probably happened but you didn't hear about it because it's not top priority on news from the area, and you're primed not to be interested in that kind of stuff anyway.

What point are you trying to make here? If one thing happens somewhere in the world and doesn't get a protest, all protest is invalidated? What are you, against freedom of speech?

Also: I really like his trump impression.

14 replies between 2 people down the page, i get the feeling he's not the only one guilty of doing that.......

"I'm not arguing - you're arguing!"

Fake as hell

YESSSSSSSSS Curb's back!!!!!

Sequentially we just saw; an average member of the public certain that a bill would stay, followed by someone who works in media who said that she had utmost faith in the bill staying.

Am i Lord Stupid of Stupidville for thinking that there might be a connection there which should make sirens and alarm bells go off in our brains?

With respect to the senior correspondent at Vox, how in the name of Zeus' arsehole did someone so naive get to be in that position?

If she was so sure and casual about it, then probably the articles and/or people that she oversaw would have been just as flippant in their reporting, which in turn gave the reader the impression they didn't have to be concerned with keeping what they needed.

I've not seen any real proof that having a royal family living in the palace is a deal-breaker for tourists. And so I've also never seen any proof that they provide a net gain to the country because they get fecking millions in subsidies, security, and all the land and positions they own 'by divine right'.

They royalty are public servants - you would never catch me bowing to any of them, or treating them any differently than i would a stranger - respectfully, as equals.

As far as i'm concerned, they've got the luckiest life in the world by birthright, which goes completely against everything i believe in. So they better do a lot of charity work and never complain about it - which to be fair they have done, but only because they know they're on thin ice and will be summarily dethroned if they act up. Especially at a time like this.