@newtboy: Trumps appeal to the LCD is successful mostly because the LCD has been allowed to grow so much in our post-Regan society. With inequality on the rise and decades of trickle-down government-by-the-wealthy-for-the-wealthy, those "left behind" have been growing faster and faster every year.

It Trump fails to win this go around then the pendulum may keep swinging further. My concern is that the next 'protest' candidate will be even worse than he.

@ChaosEngine:

We'll have to agree to disagree about some things. For me, as bad as Trump is, I'm not convinced that he is worse than what Hillary was revealted to be by the DNC Leaks...

...but perhaps instead of arguing about which shit sandwich is worse, it is more productive to work together to find out why there are only shit sandwiches on the menu?

On this:

"But things will never change until you fix your broken political system. You're barely a democracy these days."

I am in complete agreement.

When I first heard of the Brexit vote, I thought it was some nasty xenophobic/racist group that had somehow managed to capture 51% of a nation. But could Britian really be that full of xenophobes? It was in a bit of casual research on the subject when I discovered that J. Pie video I referenced in my earlier comment. I had to revise my first assumption about the group that voted to leave the E.U.. While there may have been an element of xenophobia involved, it was economic factors that was the driving force behind the Brexit vote.

People who have been screwed over by years of government for corporations which has only worsened since Glass–Steagall was repealed by Bill Clinton. The hold the wealthy have on government was tightened after Citizen's United.

Much of the support Trump has been able to marshal is a reaction to years of governance-for-the-wealthy-by-the-wealthy.

Lawrence Lessig's does a better job unpacking this quagmire in his talk: "We The People: the Republic We Must Reclaim" which has far too few views on YT or votes on the sift, IMO. For anyone who's ever been unhappy with the political system in the past number of years, I consider it a must-watch.


Link here:

http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-2016-will-have-two-elections-TED-talk

Well, there we differ.

I don't engage anymore with people who are so passionate about their beliefs, they insult others. There is nothing I can say that will change them.

What was posted was just fine, just as it was.

Did you know that there are a disproportionate number of vegetarians in Britian? And there are a lot of them? So they have an interesting population to study.

I read somewhere that vegetarians, on average, have a higher IQ than the general population. Makes sense to me -- they read, they empathize, they question. That all takes intelligence.

It really doesn't matter to me if they "go too far." That is just passion. That is how change happens -- folks on the fringe pulling us sluggards in the middle out of our complacency.

I have more trouble the Sanders contingent than I do with vegans. Same dynamic -- they are passionate about their topic, and they don't differentiate between compromise and selling out, and if they keep this shit up, if Hillary gets the nomination, Trump might actually win.

Now THAT is over the top behavior that has real consequences.

Being passionate on the Sift is fine. If you don't like it, I honestly think it is better not to engage. Keeps your blood pressure down. Since trying to change their minds (on any passionately held topic) is fruitless, you are actually ahead.

You get low blood pressure!

(And I agree that we "should" have a mostly plant based diet. For a multitude of reasons -- health, the environment, limited resources, water usage, the list is pretty long before you even get to the abuse that animals in factory farms suffer. Do I have a plant based diet? No. Do I feel shame for not doing what is right? Yes. Am I going to change? No. "Should" I change? Yes. Do I enjoy the passionate and scolding posts made by friends on Facebook? No. Do I stop following them to "save" myself? No.

Instead of the Art of War, I am trying to practice the Art of Disengagement. Better for my health!)

No. This video is misinformed at best and deceitful at worst. Now the Young Turks are trying to interpret history how they want to. History should not be read in light of current political feelings, by either side. It needs to be read as it happened.

When tea became popular in the colonies in the early 18th century, British Parliament passed a law in 1721 saying that the colonies had to import their tea only from Great Britain. The East India company never sold to the colonies; it sold wholesale auction in Britain which was then later imported by various merchant middlemen.

Since the British were taxing the East India company about 25% for their tea, plus additional taxes on tea for consumption, and the Dutch weren't taxing their companies any, a huge pastime in both England and the colonies was buying smuggled Dutch tea at much cheaper prices. The East India company was losing big money.

In 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act to help the East India company compete with smugglers. This lowered the tax on tea consumed in Great Britain and gave the company a refund of the 25% duty of tea that was re-exported to the colonies. Of course, this meant a loss of revenue for Parliament, so they also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, on the colonies.

Don't forget that the British Empire was in massive debt following the Seven Year's War (1756-1763). You have the 1765 Stamp Act, which was a tax just on the colonies requiring most things on printed paper to use taxed or "stamped" paper purchased at a premium from Britian. You also have the Sugar Act of 1764, which was, again, a tax imposed only on the colonies. Then the Revenue Act of 1766. Add all of this on top of the fact that the colonies were in a big economic turmoil following the war, and that each of these added fuel to the fire of the "no taxation without representation" debate and you get a bunch of pissed off colonists, probably for a whole host of reasons.

The colonies were viewed as nothing more than a source of revenue for the 'grand' ideas of the British Empire.

>> ^rottenseed:
sooo...black people talk like jamaicans in Britain?


Finish the video, sir!

In reply to this comment by joedirt:
In reply to this comment by mharvey42:

That's a keen and concise use of sarcasm, and one wasted on most of the sheeple here. The Jews excel the world around at arts, entertainment, science, medicine, business and finance, literature, the list goes on.
Muslims the world around have devoted their genius to killing, destroying societies, oppressing women and, oh ya, Allah.

The Mohammaden blight has nothing to do with race. It is the culture and religeon. Pakistan, Phillipines, Thialand, India, Iraq, Darfur, Beslan, Sweden, France, Britian. All these places and more they are assaulting the rules of law and advancing barbarism.

---
You are clearly a racists. Your sick twisted mind can't see that if you swap Jew with Caucasian and Muslim with Jew you sound exactly like Churchill or Hitler? There are some pitfalls with your racial superiority statements, but the irony is lost on you. You are sad and ignorant of any western civ history.
----
Dirt - Muslim (Islam) is not a race, it is a religion (or cult). There are Muslims of many, many ethnic types, as there are Arabs (and "Palestinians" of both various Muslim and Christian sects.

I am well versed in many aspects of Western Civilization and culture, as well as other cultures. This allows me to eexamine much of the same empirical evidence, and dran different conclusions than you and the "me too" crowd. You will benefit from this Diversity of Opinion.

I am emphatically not racist, I recognize abject evil, and will continue to point it out in the actions and policies of Hamas. The moral equivalence you espouse is a twisting of logic around a dark core of emptiness.
(Your equating Churchill with Hitler ultimate proof of that)

In reply to this comment by mharvey42:

That's a keen and concise use of sarcasm, and one wasted on most of the sheeple here. The Jews excel the world around at arts, entertainment, science, medicine, business and finance, literature, the list goes on.
Muslims the world around have devoted their genius to killing, destroying societies, oppressing women and, oh ya, Allah.

The Mohammaden blight has nothing to do with race. It is the culture and religeon. Pakistan, Phillipines, Thialand, India, Iraq, Darfur, Beslan, Sweden, France, Britian. All these places and more they are assaulting the rules of law and advancing barbarism.

---
You are clearly a racists. Your sick twisted mind can't see that if you swap Jew with Caucasian and Muslim with Jew you sound exactly like Churchill or Hitler? There are some pitfalls with your racial superiority statements, but the irony is lost on you. You are sad and ignorant of any western civ history.

In reply to this comment by Pprt:
So Jewish people are the ones blowing themselves up in foreign countries and intentionally killing civilians, while the Muslims are prosperous inventors and artisans? That's news to me.

That's a keen and concise use of sarcasm, and one wasted on most of the sheeple here. The Jews excel the world around at arts, entertainment, science, medicine, business and finance, literature, the list goes on.
Muslims the world around have devoted their genius to killing, destroying societies, oppressing women and, oh ya, Allah.

The Mohammaden blight has nothing to do with race. It is the culture and religeon. Pakistan, Phillipines, Thialand, India, Iraq, Darfur, Beslan, Sweden, France, Britian. All these places and more they are assaulting the rules of law and advancing barbarism.

Favourites

1) Season: Late spring and mid fall
2) Place in the world: Where ever I am at that time
3) Children's book: Where the Wild Things Are
4) TV Series: West Wing
5) Word: Bullocks
6) Film: Battle of Britian
7) Curse: Such gooood looks *wink
Creature: titmouse
9) Past time: playing with my hotwheels on my parents couch
10)Person:

Which one?

11) Dog or cat: one reeeeeally lazy cat... I think he was born with a marijuana gene that keeps him constantly chill
12) Sweet or savoury: savoury
13) Cereal or Toast: cereal
14) Tan or pale: pasty scotch irish, german, swedish boy
15) Shoes or barefoot: depends on where im a walkin
16) Desktop or laptop: lappy 2000
17) Drive or walk: prefer to walk
18) Drama or comedy: both
19) Sex or food: yes please
20) Futurama or Simpsons: SIMPSONS!

The Sift

21) Your fave personal submission: http://www.videosift.com/video/Fibber-McGee-and-Molly-1959-tv-pilot because I used to fall asleep to the radio program every night as a kid
22) A great comment on one of your vids: "It doesn't mention anything about needing to be nude in a Greco-Roman building. I guess that's up to personal preference."
23) Most off the wall member: ummm.... ill get back to you on that one
24) Favourite user name:
25) Your most used channel: not sure
26) Personal dumbass moment: this answer would be shorter if it was personal awesome achievement.
27) Best avatar: Crosswords
28) Partner in crime: mums the word
29) Do people offline know of your sift problem: only the ones that attend the sifters anonymous meetings with me
30) Idea for the site:

About you

31) Where do you live: St. Paul Minnesota
32) Smoker/non-smoker: non
33) Left or right handed: left
34) Hair colour: blo..brow...... yes
35) Relationship status: taken
36) How tall: 5'11"
37) Children: 43 that i know of
38) Ever had an operation: nope, but i have broken a couple things
39) Best feature: not good at that one
40) Use four words to describe yourself: well, i like to.... awww

If you could...what, who, when etc

41) Bring a famous person back from the dead: Churchill, seemed like a good honest man
42) Give 50 grand to any charity: Design for the other 90%
43) Send someone on a one way ticket to the moon: meee
44) Relive a moment in your life: "hey! HEY!!! get out of my stuff!!!!"
45) Have a superpower: I dont care how over used it is, i wanna fly!
46) Find out one thing you've always wanted to know: will my country make it another 50 years?
47) Have the opposite gender deal with something you have to:
48) Be president for one hour: I would rummage through the oval office for hidden treasure
49) Delete a period in history: bush bush bush bush bush
50) Achieve one thing: confidence.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'little, britian, sketch, comedy' to 'little, britian, usa, sketch, comedy' - edited by LadyDeath

I'll start with saying I'm glad I misread you -- there are so many people here in the US who repeat these kinds of things out of pure partisanship. What was in that clip was no reasoned debate, condemning Obama's use of fear, it was two propagandists for the right-wing party trying to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the opposition party's candidate for the Presidency.

I agree with your assessment that the low point of Obama's trip was the Israel leg. He always steps up his rhetoric about Iran, and that makes me nervous. He did the same thing when speaking to AIPAC here in the states (the pro-Israel lobby), and he caught a lot of flak for it from his base.

I think the main thing Europeans have to worry about is the echoes of 9/11 that are still ringing here in this country. They're no longer clearly audible, but it's just below our register, affecting our subconscious. The public in this country will not elect anyone who would not make the appeal to the world to aid us in our so-called "fight against extremism".

However, if you look back at his earlier comments from the beginning of the primary, you'd see he spent a lot of time talking about the need to "change our mindset" and to not act out of fear. That's part of why he's got Hope and/or Change emblazoned on his signs and bumper stickers. Hillary (and the rest of the Democratic field) blasted him for being "weak on terror", and he made a clear turn about a year ago to make sure he kept sounding a tougher line about extremism.

I think he's now in a place where he has to keep the momentum on this going, because he can't win without doing that.

That said, he has made it clear he will listen to our allies more -- so even if he does get carried away, I do think pressure from Europe would affect him. I think if he wins, he will begin the long process of trying to reverse the pervasive fear running through the populace -- fears that Bush amplified for his own purposes.

John McCain on the other hand will happily give Europe the middle finger if they protest an American plan to invade Iran, because many people here think that shows "good leadership" and "independence". He'll also happily continue to perpetuate those fears about terrorism. He has said on many occasions that the "fight against Islamic Extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century."

From what I see, Bush has pushed this country a great distance towards fascism. McCain's a member of the same political party, and it's clear that all the same advisers have gotten their hooks into McCain, because he's gone from a moderate that I actually kinda liked, to being in lock step with Bush, not only on issue positions, but also the combative, disrespectful, fear mongering overtones. He's also got the media propagandists helping him (like the ones in your clip), who dig up ridiculous claims like Obama is a muslim, or a terrorist, or that he wasn't born in the US (which would make him ineligible for the Presidency).

That's why I reacted the way I did to your post.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
I hope you're following my line of thinking, I'm brainstorming it all right out in full flow...

To Americans, these events will be soaked in pride, hope and patriotism, there is nothing wrong with that.

But to a British politician or to the Lords who have reign over the politicians, it paints a very different picture. It's one thing when Luther King makes speeches about civil rights in this way, it's another when Obama talks about uniting forces against extremism, and even goes as far as talking about Iranian nukes. That's the language of fear, that's the kicker, that's the alarm bell - and I mean that in the most literal sense, this language of fear is one of the things Winston Churchill warned about in the tomes of books he wrote after WW2, about how the world must avoid the same thing happening again, and how he regretted that Britian didn't move sooner against Germany.

These are very specific things contained in Obama's speeches, and I really don't know what to make of it. I think you should be thankful that at least somebody in American media saw this from a perspective of history. WW2 is very fresh in the minds of people in England, the country is soaked in the history of that war in every town and city and bit of countryside and Obama's words are very potent and a bit scary to be frank in that context.

That's why I say it's all about persepective, and what makes it frightening is that Obama's speechwriters couldn't have made it any more potent in the context of WW2.

Phew.

Yeah I'm in Ireland!

Man, I was a news junkie for years, I picked it up from my grandfather. I was one of those guys who sat and watched BBC News 24, all day long, changing over to the ITV news to see their take on the same stories. All I ever watched on TV was News and Star Trek.

I remember the exact moment when BBC News started to change and go the way of American news. It was in 2003, when David Kelly, the british UN weapons expert was found dead in a forest near his home. Just a couple of days previous, I had watched the entire live 2 hour cross examination of David Kelly in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, as he completely tore holes in the dossier that the UK government had put forward claiming that Saddam had WMD. I had been following the whole story in impeccable detail, online, on TV, bookmarking everything I could, and I had been looking forward to seeing David Kelly appear in front of the committee.

Anyone who watched it live was completely blown away by it, it couldn't have been any more dramatic. The government totally shot themselves in the foot. That night on the news, the BBC got stuck right into Tony Blair and the UK government and they continued to do so for the next couple of days, exposing all the lies about the Iraq war. It seemed finally that we were going to get the whole truth, and David Kelly was the key to the whole thing.

Then David Kelly was found dead, an alleged suicide. The same day the government went on the offensive against the BBC, people in the BBC were sacked over the next few weeks, government mouthpieces started appearing on all the TV news programmes shouting down presenters and acting very very strange indeed.

That is the exact moment when it changed. The BBC started becoming very very dumbed down very very quickly. Reports on the Israel/Palestine conflict became very watered down, that was when I really knew that the government had gagged the BBC (also happened in the 80s when Thatcher was in power during the Falklands war). The only decent reports were hour long specials broadcast at 1am or 2am, the normal daily news became a joke. Even the presenters were changed.

Within a year, the ITV News (Independent TV news in the UK), which had been reporting very consistently about the whole debacle ceased broadcasting.

Now the House of Lords - very little of what goes on in there is ever covered on the news. To see it you have to watch the live broadcasts on the Parliament channel (which I don't get any more cos I cancelled my cable a few months ago). It's where law is made, the house of commons is the showpiece for the public. All the stuff they decide in the commons has to go to the Lords where it is actually discussed at a very high level of detail and intelligence before it can be made law. The Lords also recommend what the UK prime minister should be saying to foreign presidents during state visits, a good example was when Blair was going to Russia and the Lords wanted him to confront the Russians about old KGB type activity rearing its head again - fascinating stuff, not a bit of it was ever on the normal news.

The Lords are probably the most well versed people on the history of Europe you could possibly meet. It is an education watching them debate sensibly and intelligently without all the pomp and drama you get on the TV news. They have bloodlines going way way back, they are soaked in the history of Britain and Europe. (Tony Blair near the end of his term even made moves to get rid of the Lords altogether when he wanted to get his 48 days detention without trial bill passed into law, the BBC actually started running hit pieces on the Lords, another sign that the BBC had changed)

Anyway, the point is, the Lords are a bit jumpy about stuff like this, and I'm sure it won't have gotten past them. Someone will have raised it for discussion. Obama making speeches in Israel about fighting extremism is very dangerous for Britain because I have watched discussions about the oppression of Palestine in the Lords and how delicately it has to be handled because the UK is an ally of the US which is an ally of Israel. Following that up with an event reminiscent of a British coronation more than a US presidential acceptance speech will really be ringing alarm bells.

I hope you're following my line of thinking, I'm brainstorming it all right out in full flow...

To Americans, these events will be soaked in pride, hope and patriotism, there is nothing wrong with that.

But to a British politician or to the Lords who have reign over the politicians, it paints a very different picture. It's one thing when Luther King makes speeches about civil rights in this way, it's another when Obama talks about uniting forces against extremism, and even goes as far as talking about Iranian nukes. That's the language of fear, that's the kicker, that's the alarm bell - and I mean that in the most literal sense, this language of fear is one of the things Winston Churchill warned about in the tomes of books he wrote after WW2, about how the world must avoid the same thing happening again, and how he regretted that Britian didn't move sooner against Germany.

These are very specific things contained in Obama's speeches, and I really don't know what to make of it. I think you should be thankful that at least somebody in American media saw this from a perspective of history. WW2 is very fresh in the minds of people in England, the country is soaked in the history of that war in every town and city and bit of countryside and Obama's words are very potent and a bit scary to be frank in that context.

That's why I say it's all about persepective, and what makes it frightening is that Obama's speechwriters couldn't have made it any more potent in the context of WW2.

Phew.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Are you, as your name implies, from Ireland?

I'm definitely curious on your take as to why the House of Lords would have an objection to what Obama said in Israel, or the fact that he plans on giving a speech to 75,000 campaign volunteers at his nomination (different from inauguration, BTW).

I did a couple searches of BBC News's site, and it seemed to generally be reporting positive reactions in the UK and elsewhere to Obama's trip. Is the UK media as distorted as the US's these days?

Here, there's already a meme forming about how this trip is going to hurt Obama domestically.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
http://politics.videosift.com/video/Obamas-Speech-Something-the-Fuehrer-would-have-done

In regards to this, I think it's important that this stuff be posted, sifted, and discussed. I'm not into posting stuff that I personally believe or subscribe to. I'm quite the opposite, I post stuff because I want to know what people think so I can get a big brainstorm of commentary. I don't know what to make of it, but I have an excellent knowledge of WW2 and whether intentional or not this is resonates with that history and is very dangerous ground for Obama and America to be on.

To be absolutely honest with you, I wouldn't be surprised if this and the Israel visit are items for discussion in the House of Lords in the UK.

so there are 11 comedians funnier than him in britian... That's not saying much for him.

oh My GOD!!! PWNAGE!!!! so is this guy like, the howard stern of britian or summin'?