Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - easytiger95

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 77
1
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: November 13, 2018, 03:43:38 PM »
It’s amazing though, since the election we’ve had the Sessions/Whittaker shenanigans, his pathetic performance in France, his appalling comments on the California wildfires, and now The NY Times is reporting that all may not be as Trump advertised on North Korea.

I’m sure I’ve left out something ( oh yeah, his petulant response to Michelle Obama and the Jim Acosta stuff).

That’s in the space of a few days...

I'd say a lot of that behaviour is driven by the realisation that the Dems are now a force to be reckoned with. Apparently now Whittaker is meeting with DOJ ethics officials to discuss possible areas of recusal. This is ridiculous stuff. I don't know what is scarier - the fact that Donald Trump can't even do authoritarianism right, or the possibility that the Republicans might put up someone with the same prejudice and disdain for democracy, except 20 times smarter, come 2020.

2
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: November 13, 2018, 03:13:58 PM »
Hmm, 538 now forecast Dems to pick 38 seats in the House and Republicans to pick up two Senate seats (in a historically bad Senate map for Dems). Really hard to believe that when they were defending Manchin, McCaskill, Heitkamp, Donnelly, Tester, that they would lose only three of them and pick up two elsewhere.

The Blue wave took a long time to materialise, but boy when it did....

Shellacking territory for Trump.

3
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: November 08, 2018, 12:47:33 AM »
Word is Mueller has Don Jr bang to rights and is preparing to indict him.

This is now a game of quick draw, driven by the need for Trump to do it in the lame duck session. I don't know why anyone expects effective institutional opposition to this. Republicans already went all in on racism and white supremacy for the mid terms. They won't baulk at a constitutional crisis.
Dems better have half a million angry protesters ready to go. Trump is a coward and like the Muslim ban, that might be the way to go.
Scary stuff for all americans if this goes down. Going fascist is like going bankrupt, it happens very slowly, then very quickly.

4
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: November 07, 2018, 03:06:17 PM »
I was getting flashbacks from 2016 when I looked at 538 around 8pm ET and the odds of the Dems taking the House had dropped from 85% the last few days and up to 6pm, down to 53%!

Then it went up to 65% and back down to mid-50s over the next 90 minutes as more data came in, before finally shooting back up to the high 80s/low 90s around 10pm.

I wasn’t expecting anything but a GOP gain in the Senate, but losing the House would have been pretty sickening.

May not have been a “blue wave”, but that is partly down to the playing field. Some of those seats the Dems were defending would have been like the GOP defending a NY Senate seat, while the GOP simply has an inbuilt advantage with the nature of the Senate representation and the redistricting they did after 2010.

Despite the Dems winning the House though, I just can’t get optimistic. The next two years is just going to be a sickening, partisan storm with Trump right in the centre. I would like to see him and the GOP work together with the Dems on stuff like infrastructure, healthcare and immigration, but it is probably not going to happen. Instead, there will be no compromising, the Muller report will come out, the Dems will start issuing subpoenas and there will be complete legislative gridlock and nastiness. The only thing that will happen is that Mitch McConnell will sit there lining up and rubber stamping ridiculously partisan, right wing judges at all levels of the Federal judiciary and Trump will double down on bigotry and demonization as the next presidential election cycle gets going and struggles with the House committees start making news.

Yep, there is a real roller coaster sense to election watching, ever since the Brexit result.

I would say, though, that you need to embrace the gridlock.

The chief failing of the Obama administration was that they didn't know their enemy. Obama himself used to say that after Obamacare was passed the "fever would break" on the Republican side. Far from it. The Republicans have long since departed from being a party that respects democratic institutions and were on that road a long time before Trump arrived - as per Benghazi, Merrick Garland, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. They are, as it stands, a quasi-fascist party, whose only real path to long term survival is to subvert the electoral system to allow for minority rule.

Noam Chomsky had already identified them as an existential threat, not just to America, but to humanity. He did so again this week.

The upshot of their losses in the House and the gains they have made in the Senate is that any last remaining moderates, a la Corker and Flake (although they were both less than useless and cowardly in their "resistance" to Trump) are gone from Capitol Hill. You now only have Kool Aid drinkers and bitter enders like Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert and the openly fascist Steve king, backed up by swivel eyed loons like Marsha Blackburn et al in the Senate. This is the Gotterdamerung - these guys are dug into the bunker and they will take the Republic down before they go. With Trump gormlessly facilitating them, they have no incentive to change, so even if Dems are foolish enough to offer them any bipartisan deals, you can be guaranteed they will demand poison pill entitlement reform with each one - to clear up a deficit they have created with their tax cut giveaway. They are not interested in governing for anyone outside their own constituency - indeed, a lot of the Evangelicals may not be interested in governing at all, given their lust for the Rapture.

The Republican party as it stands must be utterly defeated. Their numbers must be reduced to such an extent that the process of self analysis that began but was aborted in 2012, will be returned to. That should hopefully lead to a party that can start making a case for conservatism whilst appealing the electorate economically, but also accepting some core truths - diversity is inevitable and should be welcomed, climate change is being exacerbated by man's actions and is an existential threat to our survival, and that unlimited corporate influence in politics is damaging to democracy.

But until then, do not even think about bipartisanship. Remember Garland, the fiscal cliff, their deficit hawkishness, and their subsequent running up of the deficit to transfer wealth to the one percent. They cannot be trusted and should only be defeated.


5
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: November 07, 2018, 02:05:31 PM »
Some perspective here - Tea Party Revolution in 2010 saw Republicans win the midterms by 6.7 percent - net gain of 68 House Seats. They then, in conjunction with governors and state legislators used redistricting rules to gerrymander the electoral map.

The result is that though the Dems this year have outperformed 2010 (7% rather than 6.7) they seem set for a seat gain of max 30 or so.

They were also facing an incredibly difficult Senate Map - which 538 had consistently called as only a 1 in 7  chance of the Dems taking it back.

Dems put a lot of faith in their "rock star" candidates - too much. Abrams was trying to become the first black woman to govern Georgia, Gillum's primary win was a big shock and the only reason that the polls were so close was that De Santis was such a racist clutz, and Beto was consistently rated as only a 1 in 5 chance to beat Cruz. Yet the expectation around all three was unrealistic and no one should be throwing themselves out the window because they lost (and Abrams is still in it - if she makes it to a run off, then the Georgia Supreme Court will have to reinstate those voters they said had been suppressed but it was too close to the election for that decision to be implemented - could be even closer in December).

Reasons for Dems to be cheerful -

They have the House and subpoena power - let the games begin!

They have flipped 7 governorships so far - they can begin to unravel the Republican gerrymander, with a clear majority of Americans in Democratic run states

They have picked up State House and Senate seats all over the country - which again will be crucial to stop vote suppression but will also be important in putting in infrastructure for 2020

Trump won white women in 2016 - he lost them by a lot last night - without them, it becomes very difficult to plot a path to reelection. It will be made even more difficult by states like Michigan and Wisconsin going Democratic as they did last night.

Very strong, very solid performance and the Dems can look forward to putting in the reforms that will see them getting greater returns for the same type of turnout in future elections.

6
General discussion / Re: Muslim gangs abusing children in England
« on: November 01, 2018, 01:44:31 PM »
So, person worried about the dangerously repressive attitude in "Islam" towards women and homosexuals' rights (which he openly campaigned against on the pages of this board during the marriage equality referendum) turns for advice to a man who has advocated for the policy of forced monogamy (Jordan Peterson supports compelling women to have sex with disaffected young men in order to prevent them becoming mass murderers) another man who has spoken of his support for the practice of underage boys having sexual relationships with older men (Milo reckons that child abuse is just a rite of passage) and another who has made his career being the editor of a misogynistic and alt right aligned online magazine (Shapiro began as an editor at Breitbart).

This is beyond parody Ice. You may think you are "heightening the contradictions" and "owning the libs" - but all you're doing is revealing yourself as an easily led bigot.

Very sad, and a long way away from your stated Christian values.
Is it possible to agree with someone on something but not everything Easytiger?
Is it possible for me to agree with Jordan Peterson on his views on feminism today? On equal rights? On the pay gap and why it exists? But not on whatever you have dragged up? He's not a Christian, not even close, but still I listen to his commentary.
Is it possible for me to agree with Milo about the threat of Islam? I obviously don't agree with his lifestyle choice, but still I listen to his commentary. Very bigoted of me.
Is it possible to listen to Ben Shapiro and agree with some of what he says (I've went after him online for his views on the conflict in Palestine).

There's a problem with grooming gangs in England
. Reading the articles, the victims report that the perpetrators use religion as justification for their actions. I haven't heard of priests or anyone else involved in abuse in the Catholic Church citing religion as reason for their abuse. In my opinion Islam is dangerous. I've stated the reasons above. it is not a religion of peace. 

Instead of discussing the actual issues I raised and discussing like adults, most people prefer to throw insults, or ridiculous arguments of 'well people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'..... because I'm a Catholic? Really?

Owning the libs? What does that even mean?

Catholics are not republicans (in the American sense). We are pro life and all about social justice. That's contrary to what both parties in the US stand for. They're either one or the other....supposedly..... I try to listen to many sources and come up with my own ideas and opinions. I disagree with a lot of what I read and hear on both sides. I'm open to thinking differently and having my mind changed but not by insults or purposeful aggression. A lot of hard men on this thread who would shit themselves before speaking like that to me in person.  It's possible to discuss things.

You have brought up the evils of sexual abuse of women and homophobia within one religion. You are taking as your sources men who have variously extolled the virtues of compelling women to be raped as a societal good, pederasty and rank misogyny. So you see that you don't have to agree with them on everything - it's just on the things that you do agree with them on i.e sexual abuse within religions, they have absolutely zero credibility, because they have all espoused sexual abuse as a good in one form or another.

And leave out the hard man stuff as well. No one forced you to come on here and spew this trash. You started the thread. Please don't turn into a snowflake when you get called on it.

They just don't make bigoted, ultra religious fanatics the way they used to...


7
General discussion / Re: Muslim gangs abusing children in England
« on: November 01, 2018, 10:29:13 AM »
So, person worried about the dangerously repressive attitude in "Islam" towards women and homosexuals' rights (which he openly campaigned against on the pages of this board during the marriage equality referendum) turns for advice to a man who has advocated for the policy of forced monogamy (Jordan Peterson supports compelling women to have sex with disaffected young men in order to prevent them becoming mass murderers) another man who has spoken of his support for the practice of underage boys having sexual relationships with older men (Milo reckons that child abuse is just a rite of passage) and another who has made his career being the editor of a misogynistic and alt right aligned online magazine (Shapiro began as an editor at Breitbart).

This is beyond parody Ice. You may think you are "heightening the contradictions" and "owning the libs" - but all you're doing is revealing yourself as an easily led bigot.

Very sad, and a long way away from your stated Christian values.

8
General discussion / Re: Muslim gangs abusing children in England
« on: October 31, 2018, 05:11:00 PM »
Islam is a younger religion than Christianity. it has not yet the undergone a comparable upheaval as the Catholic church did during the Reformation and Renaissance. Probably more difficult for Islam to do so, as it was never as monolithic as the Roman Church.

During the Caliphate, Islamic cities were centres of study, and of incredible cultural and scientific progress.

Following the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the discovery of oil and the partition of the Middle East by the great powers, the ordinary populations of these countries have been exploited, abused and degraded. Any attempt to draw a generalisation from the behaviour of a small segment of a population, without taking into account economic and societal factors that have a far greater effect on that behaviour, is asinine and dangerous (far more then Iceman's blatantly bigoted idea of Islam). Anyone who knows anything about the abuse scandals here know that the cultural primacy of the priest in Irish society and the weakness of the working class, the social deprivations that led to industrial schools and Magdalene laundries, had far more to do with it than an over riding belief in one Holy Apostolic Church.

But if someone suggested that all Irish catholics were dangerous because of our own scandals - which were far more prevalent  than the examples Iceman is giving - then the bleating you would hear from the faithful would deafen you.

Give people bread now and they don't have to worry about heaven later. Economic stability and a strong working and middle class, with safeguards against exploitation from the business class, usually leads to more liberal social attitudes, no matter the religion - and by definition 1.6 billion people can't be fanatics.

If we are not prepared to acknowledge the affect that Western exploitation has had on the cultures of the developing world, then we are further away from real equality than ever before.

And Iceman, you should really cop yourself on. This is hate speech you are throwing out there. There were genuine questions about the authorities response to Rotheram, which were addressed in the report following the scandal. But extrapolating an existential threat from Islam because of that situation means you are either being taken advantage of your "pastor" (and as a grown man you should be ashamed at being led so docilely to intolerance) or you are an enthusiastic bigot.

These are not good choices, and are so far away from the teachings of Christ that you profess to adhere to, as to be laughable.

You want an existential threat to worry about? Try the American Republican Party, which, backed by oligarchs, evangelicals and white fascists is not only stoking fear and hatred against minorities, are also denying and actively accelerating the ecological destruction of our planet in pursuit of profit and a dingbatted belief in the Rapture. All this whilst sitting on the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, and being led by a corpulent, lecherous, pumpkin faced, misogynistic certified f$£king thick.

That is dangerous. You should grow up and stop kissing your pastor's feet.

9
General discussion / Re: What's your relationship with alcohol?
« on: October 18, 2018, 06:29:38 PM »
Tremendous thread lads. Reminds me of why I started posting here in the first place.

From the time I was 15, I liked a pint. Loved the social aspect of it, definitely picked that up from my Dad. There wasn't a lot of drink taken in the house, but he was out at the pub a lot.

Drink made me feel invincible as a young fella - couple that with being a bit (a lot ) of a smart arse and having a quick enough temper, made sure I got into a fair amount of scrapes. Thank the Lord Jaysis I was completely crap at fighting (the thought of putting my fist in someone elses face always made me queasy) so the only person ever hurt was me.

I prided myself on holding my drink, never getting sick, never slurring, always being the one to speak to the bouncers to get us in. It was only the following evenings when someone would rock up and say they were chatting to me the night before, with no memory from me, that I would realise I had blacked out. Lights on, but no one home. Again, thank God I got myself home safely (mostly!) most nights.

I would never have thought of myself as having a problem. Sure couldn't I drink more than most of my friends? This continued into my early twenties, when two things happened.

Firstly, I got badly assaulted in Liverpool whilst I was over at a Premier League match. Some gombeen came over to me and my buddies in a pub the night before and threatened us because one of the lads had apparently been chatting to yer man's girlfriend. We told him to get lost, but to save ourselves some hassle, we left and headed back to the hotel. He followed us and ten minutes later, when I stopped to tie my lace, he smacked me in the back of the head. Never saw him or his fist coming. Anyway, he fractured my skull. I was laid up for a couple of weeks after going home.

You get a lot of time to reflect in a hospital bed. Was I in the wrong for what happened? According to my friends and witnesses and the police, no. But would I have been able to have been jumped like that if I hadn't had a skinful of pints and vodka and red bull? And why was I drinking so much at any one time? Where was the enjoyment if I couldn't even remember it?

Secondly, after I recovered, I went into a new career, in sports television. I was completely energised by the work which made a big difference to me. I was working weekends, which made big nights on Friday and Saturdays a thing of the past. But I definitely reduced my intake and started to enjoy the nights out that I actually did have, more.

I've gone through loads since, as we all have. A sick child, a marriage ending, navigating a new life and a new relationship, various ups and downs in my career. But I am so lucky that when all those things did happen, I had already come to a reckoning of sorts with alcohol in my mid twenties, so that it didn't seem to be an option or a crutch when I needed one.

I still drink and enjoy my drink. But the reason I enjoy it is because it is a by-product of seeing friends and family rather than the other way round. I can drink far less now - I'd get a hangover looking at a short, let alone drinking one. But given that all of my buddies have families and kids, the odd night we do get out, we really enjoy it - but we're in a taxi home at closing rather than into McGowans as used to be the way.

I have a detached relationship with alcohol now- I don't count the times I drink because it is not often enough to worry about. I keep some in the house to offer guests, but it would be very rare that I would drink at home - maybe a couple of glasses of wine on a summer night out the back after dinner.

I am very lucky and know myself enough to know that things could have very easily gone a different way. Good luck to everyone who shared on this thread - I hope you all find a way to come to some peace with it.




10
GAA Discussion / Re: Time to Split Dublin
« on: September 18, 2018, 01:06:23 AM »
I was arguing with syferus over his claim that Dublin was an amalgamation of four different counties- which is neither factually or grammatically correct.

The article quoted gave the date of the creation of those 4 LAUs in Dublin, which was i used it. The fact that it correctly labels them as county councils than erroneously labels them as counties is not my problem. Everyone with half a brain knows the difference between a LAU and an actual county. Google local government in Ireland and see what you find.

And now you are back tracking because you realise how stupid equating LAUs and actual counties are. You did tell us that the oireachtas had made them counties didn't you?

Good jaysis. Argue all you want about Dublin's funding but when i see morons saying Dublin should be split because Dublin is an amalgamation of 4 counties, i'll call it and them out for the stupidity it is.

You jumped on the wrong bandwagon Lar. There are a lot of thicks on this board

11
GAA Discussion / Re: Time to Split Dublin
« on: September 17, 2018, 05:42:27 PM »
"In 1994, Dublin was further subdivided with Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin, constituted as local government units."

You lads are making an absolute show of yourselves.
You still don't get the message.
Counties are local government units.

Good jaysis.

In the Republic of Ireland there are
26 County Councils
3 City Councils
2 City and County Councils

Which adds up to 31 LAUs (Local Authority Units) for 26 Counties.

I look forward to the case you make for splitting Galway and Cork based on their local government arrangements.

This is really embarrassing stuff lads.

There are issues for Dublin and the other 31 (that's 31 counties folks) with regard to fair funding (and what counties should be doing with that funding). But the reason Dubs fans aren't engaging with you is not because of your devastating rhetoric, but because ye constantly, constantly, undermine yourselves with transparent lies and ignorance. 31 counties in the Republic! Lord jaysis.

As I said earlier, idiocy does not deserve to be coddled.


12
GAA Discussion / Re: Time to Split Dublin
« on: September 17, 2018, 01:40:04 PM »
"In 1994, Dublin was further subdivided with Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin, constituted as local government units."

You lads are making an absolute show of yourselves.


 

13
GAA Discussion / Re: Time to Split Dublin
« on: September 17, 2018, 01:37:55 PM »
What is the answer to the question - how many counties are there in Ireland?

What is the answer to the question - how many county councils and administrative areas are there in Ireland?

This is arithmetic for slow learners.

As for my original post, I pointed out the meaning of the word "amalgamation". You obviously missed that.

Not to labour the point, but you are now arguing that there is more than 32 counties in Ireland, and that Dublin county and football team is an amalgamation of four existing counties.

Like I said, a lot of thicks on this board.


14
GAA Discussion / Re: Time to Split Dublin
« on: September 17, 2018, 12:54:59 PM »
It's one of the funniest defences of the unfair advantages Dublin have and it's one that gets the Dubs in a real muddle.

The population of 1.3 million doesn't count as an advantage they say. That's because the Dubs play loads of other sports, rugby, soccer etc, apparently these sports aren't available to kids outside Dublin! Then they say that the 1.3 million count includes tonnes of foreigners and culchies, apparently foreigners don't live in any other county and culchies always remain in their own counties!

This is where it gets really funny though. After spouting on about how their population isn't an advantage, you ask them about the millions of euro they receive every year off all of us. What's their reply? We need the money because of our huge population!!!  ;D ;D ;D

Now read it back, really carefully, and you will see ... the answer is in your own post.

Like I said, a lot of thicks on this thread.

15
GAA Discussion / Re: Time to Split Dublin
« on: September 17, 2018, 12:29:07 PM »
It doesn't. Neither does the amount of registered club players per county.

Idiocy doesn't deserve to be coddled.

You'd both want to cop yourselves on.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 77