http://www.hungarianreview.com/article/20170124_hungary_and_the_crisis_of_europe

I'm pretty sure this is actually within the powers of the federal government

On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law, even though he insisted on accompanying that authorization with a statement explaining his hesitance to essentially eliminate habeas corpus for the American people.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” President Obama wrote. “In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sets-5-lifetime-lobbying-ban-officials-214724850--finance.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump acted Saturday to fulfill a key portion of his pledge to "drain the swamp" in Washington, banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.

Quote from: ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ on January 28, 2017, 02:09:22 PM

Quote from: Luciana on January 28, 2017, 02:06:49 PM

Quote from: H. T. on January 28, 2017, 02:00:32 PM

Practical how? They can't project power outside of the South China Sea, have no global allies willing to confront NATO, and rely on the US and Europe for trade. They produce goods and export them; good luck sustaining their shitty, fragile economy while at war with their biggest trade partner.

No, they'll continue corporate spying and inhumane labor practices to hold power. Peer wars are a thing of a past.

The more he alienates China and pushes them, the more willing they are to get closer ties with Russia, which isn't a win for anyone.

Not if we cuck the Chinese and can get Russia on our side in this area.

I think China and Russia both recognize that their long-term interests in Central Asia conflict.

Russia hates the US for a myriad of reasons. Russia would never be on the US's side, even with Trump willing to suck Putin's dick. At best, they'd be friendly enemies. As long as the US is the leader of NATO, and NATO exists, Russia would never be willing to be friends.

China's growing power is a threat to both US and Russian interests. Right now the Chinese are looking East at the Pacific, but one day they'll turn their hungry eyes to Siberia, and I think the Russians recognize that they can't hold onto their eastern territories for very long in the event of a conflict with China. For a long time now, the only thing keeping Siberia secure has been the remoteness of the region. That is increasingly becoming less of a factor.

Quote from: ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ on January 28, 2017, 01:35:20 PM

To be fair to the Soviets and Chinese, a lot of the deaths that occurred under their rule resulted from incompetence rather than homicidal or genocidal intent. And the numbers are very likely exaggerated.

Stalin was bad, plain and simple. Mao was worse though. What was the number? Close to 100 Million I think. Yeah, fuck him.

Do you really think accurate records from the time exist? lmao most of the numbers you see cited come from the Black Book of Communism, which was a borderline propaganda piece. There was political repression, but the vast majority of deaths under the Soviets and Chinese happened because of famines. You can blame this on the repression of the Kulak class and general communist stupidity, as opposed to the Nazi death toll which was all intentional.

I say this as a guy who would be happy to see gommies get thrown out of helicopters.

To be fair to the Soviets and Chinese, a lot of the deaths that occurred under their rule resulted from incompetence rather than homicidal or genocidal intent. And the numbers are very likely exaggerated.

I'm still waiting for Mexico to "pay for it".

Unfortunately, it'll be my taxes going towards it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-trump-can-make-mexico-pay-for-the-border-wall-heres-how/2017/01/17/7edf7872-dcbf-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.ebb6c2cfd83d

REMOVE PROPAGANDIST

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/20/billionaire-george-soros-has-ties-to-more-than-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/

In the pre-dawn darkness of today’s presidential inauguration day, I faced a choice, as a lifelong liberal feminist who voted for Donald Trump for president: lace up my pink Nike sneakers to step forward and take the DC Metro into the nation’s capital for the inauguration of America’s new president, or wait and go tomorrow to the after-party, dubbed the “Women’s March on Washington”?

 The Guardian has touted the “Women’s March on Washington” as a “spontaneous” action for women’s rights. Another liberal media outlet, Vox, talks about the “huge, spontaneous groundswell” behind the march. On its website, organizers of the march are promoting their work as “a grassroots effort” with “independent” organizers. Even my local yoga studio, Beloved Yoga, is renting a bus and offering seats for $35. The march’s manifesto says magnificently, “The Rise of the Woman = The Rise of the Nation.”

It’s an idea that I, a liberal feminist, would embrace. But I know — and most of America knows — that the organizers of the march haven’t put into their manifesto: the march really isn’t a “women’s march.” It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.

As someone who voted for Trump, I don’t feel welcome, nor do many other women who reject the liberal identity-politics that is the core underpinnings of the march, so far, making white women feel unwelcome, nixing women who oppose abortion and hijacking the agenda.

To understand the march better, I stayed up through the nights this week, studying the funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are “partners” of the march. Is this a non-partisan “Women’s March”?

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, a march “partner,” told me his organization was “nonpartisan” but has “many concerns about the incoming Trump administration that include what we see as a misogynist approach to women.” Nick Fish, national program director of the American Atheists, another march partner, told me, “This is not a ‘partisan’ event.” Dennis Wiley, pastor of Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ, another march “partner,” returned my call and said, “This is not a partisan march.”

Really? UnitedWomen.org, another partner, features videos with the hashtags #ImWithHer, #DemsInPhily and #ThanksObama. Following the money, I poured through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?

I found out: plenty.

By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment. 

On the issues I care about as a Muslim, the “Women’s March,” unfortunately, has taken a stand on the side of partisan politics that has obfuscated the issues of Islamic extremism over the eight years of the Obama administration. “Women’s March” partners include the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has not only deflected on issues of Islamic extremism post-9/11, but opposes Muslim reforms that would allow women to be prayer leaders and pray in the front of mosques, without wearing headscarves as symbols of chastity. Partners also include the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which wrongly designated Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim reformer, an “anti-Muslim extremist” in a biased report released before the election. The SPLC confirmed to me that Soros funded its “anti-Muslim extremists” report targeting Nawaz. (Ironically, CAIR also opposes abortions, but its leader still has a key speaking role.)

Another Soros grantee and march “partner” is the Arab-American Association of New York, whose executive director, Linda Sarsour, is a march co-chair. When I co-wrote a piece, arguing that Muslim women don’t have to wear headscarves as a symbol of “modesty,” she attacked the coauthor and me as “fringe.”

Earlier, at least 33 of the 100 “women of color,” who initially protested the Trump election in street protests, worked at organizations that receive Soros funding, in part for “black-brown” activism. Of course, Soros is an “ideological philanthropist,” whose interests align with many of these groups, but he is also a significant political donor. In Davos, he told reporters that Trump is a “would-be dictator.”

Much like post-election protests, which included a sign, “Kill Trump,” were not  “spontaneous,” as reported by some media outlets, the “Women’s March” is an extension of strategic identity politics that has so fractured America today, from campuses to communities. On the left or the right, it’s wrong. But, with the inauguration, we know the politics. With the march, “women” have been appropriated for a clearly anti-Trump day. When I shared my thoughts with her, my yoga studio owner said it was “sad” the march’s organizers masked their politics. “I want love for everyone,” she said.

The left’s fierce identity politics and its failure on Islamic extremism lost my vote this past election, and so, as the dawn’s first light breaks through the darkness of the morning as I write, I make my decision: I’ll lace up my pink Nikes and head to the inauguration, skipping the “Women’s March” that doesn’t have a place for women like me.

The Sig P320

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1054538

Sig Sauer Inc., Newington, New Hampshire, was awarded a $580,217,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the Modular Handgun System including handgun, accessories and ammunition to replace the current M9 handgun.  Bids were solicited via the Internet with nine received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 19, 2027.  Army Contracting Command, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (W15QKN-17-D-0016).



For you European types, the P320 is basically a Sig brand Glock.

I was seriously thinking about buying one of these when I turn 21 next year. I've heard really good things about them. I'm curious to see how these perform in the sandbox. I genuinely didn't expect the Army to choose a weapon without a manual safety.

Literally the jews of Asia

Normies- all of them

Shit's a little surreal. Been listening to some spacey trap since the folk rock I had earlier today was too depressing.

Growing up I figured I'd be pretty squared away by now. Even by the end of high school I had that mindset.

Now I'm almost there and it feels like coming in the day an essay is due with only two paragraphs written. I'm aware of historical figures who were conquering other nations at 19.

Does/did anybody else feel this way at this point? Have I fucked up somewhere or is it a millenial thing?

I know it's a flaw of mine and I hope people here aren't really bothered by it.

A flaw? You're taking the bantz too seriously, Flee. Serious would be a much higher quality board if more of the discourse was done in your style. Wouldn't be as memey though.