I think the U.S. has a very competent and rich, and successful history, but it's stagnant.

It is easy to underestimate the cultural power that the United States has. It still sets the trends world wide in art and culture, certainly in popular culture.

It is interesting how people here view the Government as both omnicompetent enough to run massive conspiracies and yet too incompetent to handle its own basic functions.

Really? It was that easy to change the subject from something actually relatively serious?

Damn people...

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

The biggest difference between the 90s and today, with respect to government, is that you've got seventeen extra years of experience under your belt now. For instance, did you know that Clinton's first term was every single bit as chaotic as Trump's? Possibly even more so? I mean maybe you've looked that up or read about it somewhere but.... was that the impression you had, back then? Not me, I was in grade school. The concept of a late-appointed chief undersecretary of the labor department swearing in was invisible to me, as I imagine it was to most people my age and younger.

TL:DR they weren't better back then, you were just littler.

I have to disagree. I have looked up the clinton white house. I am a history major, though granted my forte is medieval history. But still, and I have to say the country is far more polarized now, and I would argue that most of Trump's term in office is more chaotic, except for the infamous clinton-cheating scandal. But yeah I know about the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory bombing and the like. I'm not saying the clinton administration was perfect, and didn't have people against it. Every presidency does, but the term U.S. government, in both culture and popculture, used to be synonymous with competence, and even a superstitious aw, and now (to many people at least) it's viewed mostly with "I wonder what happened this week."

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

It is easy to underestimate the cultural power that the United States has. It still sets the trends world wide in art and culture, certainly in popular culture.

It is interesting how people here view the Government as both omnicompetent enough to run massive conspiracies and yet too incompetent to handle its own basic functions.

My thoughts exactly. Ever since the 1890s, and perhaps even before, it was a powerhouse on the world stage, and particularly after WW2. But there's just so many clashes today, and the internet and bias media, left and right, to perpetuate it further.

<Snipped quote by mdk>
I have to disagree. I have looked up the clinton white house. I am a history major, though granted my forte is medieval history. But still, and I have to say the country is far more polarized now, and I would argue that most of Trump's term in office is more chaotic, except for the infamous clinton-cheating scandal. But yeah I know about the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory bombing and the like. I'm not saying the clinton administration was perfect, and didn't have people against it. Every presidency does, but the term U.S. government, in both culture and popculture, used to be synonymous with competence, and even a superstitious aw, and now (to many people at least) it's viewed mostly with "I wonder what happened this week."

First year, is what I was talking about. Granted, Clinton didn't have Russia -- but his actual government was in disarray for the first year of office. He got it together.

But it kinda sounds to me like you're talking about something else entirely. It sounds like you're talking about people's perception of the government, and/or how it was portrayed in the media. Just pick any Republican president, any of 'em. Name one. Bush? it was like this. Reagan? It was like this. Bush Sr.? ......I mean he lost as an incumbent, so it MUST have been bad. Lincoln? It was like this, but a little worse. Etc.

So Comrade Detective just came out on Amazon. It's mildly political, and amusing.

That's a deliberately vague term. What, precisely, are you alleging? The complete and total charge, the whole shebang. Lay it out for me.

Did I say I have one? I'm just saying that the Russians did influence the American elections, in some way. I mean, RT alone is proof of that. Maybe they didn't do it illicitly, maybe they did, but they did something; my point was that denying there was any involvement of Russians gives libtards ammunition.

Hey guys. Thoughts?

All the things the guy discusses seem pretty straightforward. It isn't anything groundbreaking argumentatively or analytically, but it caused quite the hubbub due to the nature of the environment it proliferated in.

Hey guys. Thoughts?

All the things the guy discusses seem pretty straightforward. It isn't anything groundbreaking argumentatively or analytically, but it caused quite the hubbub due to the nature of the environment it proliferated in.

It's a company's internal "politics" so I can't really give a shit.

Well, to begin, I enjoy the subtle disparaging comments of the author of the article. I am also a tad curious as to the omitted hyperlinks and graphs.

I began to try and read the entire thing, until after awhile I realized that he was essentially just reiterating what numerous other people have attempted to explain before (whether it be incorrect/correct) I ended up scrolling to the bottom, expecting there to be a reply from Google HQ, lo and behold, I was right, and the general message of the reply basically informed everyone that Google would be dismissing this memo, and was hoping to sweep it under the rug. Pretty much par for the course whenever someone attempts to broach this conversation.

One thing I did think was clearly wrong however, (before I lost my patience and skipped to the end) was the argument that men are more status driven. This just seems silly, you could perhaps argue that men and women attempt to achieve status in different ways, but to outright say that men have a higher drive for status, seems a bit... whats the word? Whatever, fill in the gap.

I feel so bad for the man who wrote this though. He's undoubtedly going to suffer in some way for this.

<Snipped quote>
Did I say I have one? I'm just saying that the Russians did influence the American elections, in some way. I mean, RT alone is proof of that. Maybe they didn't do it illicitly, maybe they did, but they did something; my point was that denying there was any involvement of Russians gives libtards ammunition.

I reject the notion that I must accept the vaguest of allegations in the absence of evidence in order to appease the Left. Show me specific, documented wrongdoing and I will condemn it. Until then, absolutely all of the Russia narrative is propaganda. That's not me being paranoid, that's how democratic politics (especially two-party politics) works -- it is all spin, all of it, all the time. Why are we talking about Russia instead of Saudi? Spin, and no other reason. Saudi's been "influencing" our elections, tangibly, directly, demonstrably, for decades -- and not just with memes, with hundreds of billions of actual real dollars. Why aren't we talking about that -- well, both parties are guilty as sin, so nobody can spin it to their favor. I mean Trump could, they were all in for Hilary, but the GOP itself takes their money all the time, so there's no calling-out.

Well that's starting to ramble. My point is -- no. I'm not playing a game with loaded dice. "Russian interference" is a meaningless term and I assign it no value whatsoever. Not. Playing. Along.

Speaking of actual demonstrable wrongdoing, wanna look into ineligible votes? Election fraud? No? Then y'all can shut the fuck up about imaginary russians.

I reject the notion that I must accept the vaguest of allegations in the absence of evidence in order to appease the Left. Show me specific, documented wrongdoing and I will condemn it. Until then, absolutely all of the Russia narrative is propaganda. That's not me being paranoid, that's how democratic politics (especially two-party politics) works -- it is all spin, all of it, all the time. Why are we talking about Russia instead of Saudi? Spin, and no other reason. Saudi's been "influencing" our elections, tangibly, directly, demonstrably, for decades -- and not just with memes, with hundreds of billions of actual real dollars. Why aren't we talking about that -- well, both parties are guilty as sin, so nobody can spin it to their favor. I mean Trump could, they were all in for Hilary, but the GOP itself takes their money all the time, so there's no calling-out.

RT. And it's not to appease the left it's to make there less people on the left and thus it's for the betterment of mankind. I repeatedly made mention of various groups like saudis going for hilary so at this point you're not even strawmanning you're just spouting shit without reading what you're spouting in a response to. But "lol hilary did more" is a pretty ebin thing to say when I didn't disagree.

Well that's starting to ramble. My point is -- no. I'm not playing a game with loaded dice. "Russian interference" is a meaningless term and I assign it no value whatsoever. Not. Playing. Along.

Speaking of actual demonstrable wrongdoing, wanna look into ineligible votes? Election fraud? No? Then y'all can shut the fuck up about imaginary russians.

Nice dude

I know it looks like I'm arguing with you -- I'm only intending to argue near you. Right? Like, "Okay, I see how you're responding to this stuff you're talking about -- here's how I respond to that same stuff." I'm not going point-for-point or whatever, but let's clarify a few things all the same.

it's not to appease the left

It's a tactical retreat from a paper tiger. You don't have to do that, paper tigers don't bite.

"lol hilary did more" is a pretty ebin thing to say when I didn't disagree.

I don't know what "ebin" means. I'm not saying "lol hilary did more," I'm saying EVERYBODY does it all the time (thought I was clear on that). So who benefits from isolating Russia's existence and painting it as suddenly a new and disruptive force in the election? That's your spin doctor right there. Again -- not trying to set up a balance and see who had the most interference (though like you said, that would be a fun game for us) -- I'm only pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of the people putting the argument out there in the first place.

RT.

I don't know what "RT" means..... Rex Tillerson?

I know it looks like I'm arguing with you -- I'm only intending to argue near you.

I don't really have the patience to distinguish

It's a tactical retreat from a paper tiger. You don't have to do that, paper tigers don't bite.

No it's not. I'm just saying you should try to defend yourself from vague positions. I'm not the one trying to push one, I'm trying to stay it's hard to protect yourself from a vague statement so you shouldn't.

I don't know what "ebin" means. I'm not saying "lol hilary did more," I'm saying EVERYBODY

once again, I don't give enough shits to make a distinguishment

hat's your spin doctor right there. Again -- not trying to set up a balance and see who had the most interference (though like you said, that would be a fun game for us) -- I'm only pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of the people putting the argument out there in the first place.

but my point is that it's such a blanket term that you can't really defend yourself from it so you shouldn't actualyl try to defend it and rather counterattack by saying what load of hooey it is

RT is the ursssian television stuff

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

First year, is what I was talking about. Granted, Clinton didn't have Russia -- but his actual government was in disarray for the first year of office. He got it together.

But it kinda sounds to me like you're talking about something else entirely. It sounds like you're talking about people's perception of the government, and/or how it was portrayed in the media. Just pick any Republican president, any of 'em. Name one. Bush? it was like this. Reagan? It was like this. Bush Sr.? ......I mean he lost as an incumbent, so it MUST have been bad. Lincoln? It was like this, but a little worse. Etc.

While I agree that most presidencies start off fairly rocky and with various controversies, however...
A late-appointed chief undersecretary of the labor department is not nearly as controversial as a Secretary of Defense being fired 2 weeks in office, an FBI director being fired for investigating the president, a communications director, a chief of staff, and a communications director being fired within 2 weeks, family members being given special roles in the white house, (allegations of) collusion with a foreign power on the offset of the presidency to bring the president into power...well you get the point. I can go on and on.
And I saw your article. It has some mentions of various controversies (some were a bit biased from my research,) but it goes on for about 4 months I believe, and it seemed as chaotic as Trump's first 4 weeks.

I admit you're right that things are always far more hectic than it seems, but Trump is just a thing that is...off the charts. And I don't say this as a republican or democrat. It's just from the facts I have seen.

There is no real issue with the hiring or firing of persons to perform roles in an administration. The Trump presidency might have hired and shuffled more around in short notice, but the practice is not exactly new. I can almost assure you that a number of those involved are still useful somewhere, even the controversial ones like Scaramucci and that even if you cannot see them, they are not completely gone from the picture being painted. If anything this ongoing hiring and firing process reminds me of a corporation undergoing restructure, which is exactly what it is. The government is in its own a way a business, with its executive redefining its operations in contrast to the previous one's; if you are not getting the work done the way it is wanted, you can expect to be removed. Family members getting favorable treatment or special roles is not a surprise either there.

The allegations of collusion are significantly more fiction than they are truth. There has yet to be any solid, incriminating or certain evidence of the Trump presidency's collaboration with Russia to win the election; everything is pointing in the exact opposite to suggest that not only the Hillary campaign was involved in actual collusion, but the previous Obama administration was as well. It is nothing but a narrative constructed by the media and its leftist investors, allies, operators and the ilk to spin a story that was exclusively fake. There's plenty of admission of that.

The sole reason the Trump administration looks to be chaos is because there are active efforts to paint and portray it that way. Over the span of seven months they have still made significant progress despite the immense amount of constant, unfiltered negative press and bombardment by their competition which hasn't enough common sense to run, hide and lick its wounds. They are swinging at anything and everything to try and sway people's opinion and are constantly failing to make their mark. Trump is an easy target in terms of political media to skew a narrative, but they are attacking the wrong things, just as they have been since he started his run for presidency.

Not really political, but someone explain sapiosexuality to me?

I am certainly no expert on the topic @Dynamo Frokane, but it seems to be a form of sexual paraphilia that focuses on the other individual's intellect and intelligence from what I recall in psychology. It tends to dwell on the fantasy of someone with exceptional or remarkable knowledge, wisdom, articulation, insight and persona - the "passion" of what makes "smart" sexually attractive over other more traditional, often physical, traits. There's some focus on the aspect of being outwitted as well.

As to how the term is employed now or those who abide by it? I admittedly do not know much there.

There is no real issue with the hiring or firing of persons to perform roles in an administration. The Trump presidency might have hired and shuffled more around in short notice, but the practice is not exactly new. I can almost assure you that a number of those involved are still useful somewhere, even the controversial ones like Scaramucci and that even if you cannot see them, they are not completely gone from the picture being painted. If anything this ongoing hiring and firing process reminds me of a corporation undergoing restructure, which is exactly what it is. The government is in its own a way a business, with its executive redefining its operations in contrast to the previous one's; if you are not getting the work done the way it is wanted, you can expect to be removed. Family members getting favorable treatment or special roles is not a surprise either there.

Yes there is an issue with that. This isn't a corporation, this is government. There are stark differences. Not everything that is profitable is of social value, and not everything of social value is profitable. I'm going to give a quote here...
"Those arguing for a business model for government must necessarily be ready to shut down all government functions that do not earn a profit, regardless of their contribution to our well being. And, if the public sector is being run properly, that should mean every single one. If it’s profitable, they shouldn’t have been doing it in the first place. There is no need for the government to start a chain of hamburger stands, hardware stores, or coffee shops. Rather, they run child protective services, the National Park Service, and the Air Force. Profit is the realm of business, while unprofitable but socially useful tasks is the responsibility of government."

@Firing: The reason many of them, or possibly all of them have been fired is for reasons that are dodgy at best, and at worst on a whim.

The allegations of collusion are significantly more fiction than they are truth. There has yet to be any solid, incriminating or certain evidence of the Trump presidency's collaboration with Russia to win the election; everything is pointing in the exact opposite to suggest that not only the Hillary campaign was involved in actual collusion, but the previous Obama administration was as well. It is nothing but a narrative constructed by the media and its leftist investors, allies, operators and the ilk to spin a story that was exclusively fake. There's plenty of admission of that.

The sole reason the Trump administration looks to be chaos is because there are active efforts to paint and portray it that way. Over the span of seven months they have still made significant progress despite the immense amount of constant, unfiltered negative press and bombardment by their competition which hasn't enough common sense to run, hide and lick its wounds. They are swinging at anything and everything to try and sway people's opinion and are constantly failing to make their mark. Trump is an easy target in terms of political media to skew a narrative, but they are attacking the wrong things, just as they have been since he started his run for presidency.

I don't get my information or opinions, or should I say facts, for that matter, from leftist media. And whenever I watch it, I take it with a grain of salt. You'll need to do some hard convincing to show me that the Obama administration colluded with Russia, or the Clinton one. I'm not targeting him because I am a leftist, because I am not. I'm targeting Trump because he is inept and corrupt. Yes the Left is having a field day with this, and claims by them are obviously bias and quite annoying, but that doesn't mean they don't celebrate harsh truths about Trump any less than their speculations.

And while the evidence of collusion is alleged, there's still very serious questions that need to be asked. Leftist Media did not have Comey investigate him. Leftist Media is not having Mueller investigate him. Leftist Media is not having Mueller call a Grand Jury. Leftist Media is not making the Trump administration be reluctant to give up any info until caught, repeatedly.

I am fairly certain you're watching a very, very far right winged program my friend.

The United States government is in dire need at all tiers of moving more toward a business model because of its egregious bureaucracy and inefficiency. There is nothing they do well by patting each other on the back and congratulating themselves for what they tend to. Anyone who has ever dealt with Veteran's Affairs, Internal Revenue Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Transportation, et cetera, et cetera can tell you what an absolute and without comparison disaster these organizations are. They are slow, barely functional, and often led by exceedingly unqualified candidates who suffer little to no penalty for failure. There is no reason this mentality should be present at any tier, especially from the top down. If that means cutting a warpath through people who are not meeting the expectations, so be it. As example, I would rather the Trump administration hire and fire four heads of education until they get it right than keep someone who is squeaking by with barely any measurable "success" in the mission and vision statement. They have four years, assuming they do not win a reelection bid, to iron out what they want done; time is of the essence and critical.

There's no shortage of information that suggests the Obama administration and the Hillary campaign have had ties to Russian operations. You have everything from the infamous instance of the then sitting President of the United States saying, "... after my election I have more flexibility." on a hot mic to the fact that Russians the Trump administration did meet with were specifically there by their competition's doing. Some are indeed what amounts to "smoking guns" and others are extremely unusual circumstances that might normally not have been possible; this is ignoring other historic instances such as the Uranium deal.

And all of these investigations have turned up... what? Nothing of note thus far and to date? The left-wing has a strong motive to collaborate with their policy and the media. There's no shortage of knowledge that this is true. The media is pushing the agenda and backing these instances, even to points of hysteria. Thus far, I've still not seen any evidence of "incompetence" or "corruption" on behalf of the Trump faction; I am not even going to argue the comparisons because at the moment, people still do not like to hear how far they have gone to discredit and tarnish the current administration.

There's little more here than disinformation, propaganda pushing, and repeated efforts to discredit someone. None of this is about the validity of the president or his agenda. It is entirely a petty effort to eliminate opposition using every tool, both legal and illegal, they have access to and have the mainstream media elaborate and embellish on all of it to further their broadcast.

Most Americans now are disinterested in these "investigations" because they are turning up with nothing.