Jump to content

Yukle

Members
  • Content count

    2,399
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Yukle

  • Rank
    Spirit of Spring
  • Birthday 07/31/1989

Profile Information

  • Location
    My head is forever in the clouds.
  • Interests
    Imagining, learning, wondering, sharing and loving.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,414 profile views
  1. Yukle

    Chess - the world in black and white

    I promise you, I am reading it, but I don't remember every terminology off the top of my head. A couple I've had to lookup, because I have forgotten them. If nothing else I reckon the opening 11 moves or so were a solid - but not perfect! - opening, and I don't think it was an accidental Queen's gambit declined. ETA: Took a while. but I went through Grischuk vs Kramnik. 0-0 isn't until turn 11, but is that what you're suggesting Roeder should've done, too?
  2. It's worth remembering that you live in your own mind, so it's normal to you. It's bland and dull only from your perspective, because it's what you're used to. To everyone else, it's interesting. Well, not in everyone's case, but in your case I certainly think so. Lots of crossed fingers for you and also for @Starkess! Whatever happens, I hope that it works out for you both. My Mum often told me: "All relationships fail except your last one." Ouch. But true.
  3. Yukle

    Chess - the world in black and white

    I'm not supremely good, but I thought it was really 12 that was the death knell. Roeder was determined to get a check but didn't seem to have thought much further ahead than that. I don't mind it, but I'm a bit bored with it. The app on my phone looooooooves using it. 23 was my favourite sequence here: en passant to force check. That's elegant.
  4. Yukle

    Laurel or Yanny?

    I keep hearing it as yellow and gold, but my workmates hear it as blue and black.
  5. Yukle

    Laurel or Yanny?

    This breaks my brain! I heard it as yanny in that YouTube clip.
  6. Yukle

    US Politics: Follow the Money!

    Imagine what would have happened if Hillary had won. There'd be so much corruption, like you wouldn't believe.
  7. Yukle

    US Politics: Follow the Money!

    Not really, he was contradictory in the campaign trail. For instance, he was both for and against abortion, for and against compulsory vaccines and so on. He had consistent thematic aspects to his campaign, absolutely, but not really consistent policies. And sure, he did mention other campaign issues consistently, such as the opioids or mining, but he's also done precisely nothing about those matters. Which, I can't help but notice, his sheep don't seem to care about. He also doubled-down on Afghanistan and Syria despite promises to the contrary. If you ever listen to his speeches or read a transcript of what he says verbatim, he doesn't really say anything coherently at all. There absolutely wasn't anything he said that says mcbigski can claim credit for voting for him based on what they've written, as they've just decided that the things they like are, retrospectively, what he must have meant all along. Even on the Iran deal, Trump didn't say he was necessarily going to withdraw, sometimes he said he would renegotiate and get a better deal. Of course, he never gave any specifics of what that deal was. And I strongly suspect that his voters don't care. It's hard to shake the feeling that they voted for him because of one of three reasons: 1) they'd never vote for a Democrat even if it was Jesus Reagan Lincoln, 2) Fox News effectively programmed their brains into thinking Hillary was worse than the sexually-harassing snake oil merchant crime lord or 3) they're bigots.
  8. Yukle

    US Politics: Follow the Money!

    Agreed; I was also glossing over lots of specifics. Just saying that all Israelis can be tarred with the same brush. It's a problem with using proportional representation in a unicameral chamber. I like PV in a house of parliament - if you have two of them and one of them doesn't use it. It's great for ensuring minority protection in a house of review, like the upper house. But it's dreadful for stability if it's the chamber of government, in a lower house or the only chamber that exists. There's also the fact that Israel's bordering countries are hardly going to be pleased with an emboldened Israel. I imagine another concession from the USA could be the recognition of complete Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, to the fury of Jordan in particular. Looking over your post, I'd expand the comment "Muslim-originated attacks" to also add separately that there are also "Arab-originated attacks". They often overlap, but not always. Since Hezbollah's base in Lebanon relies upon them having a wider religious appeal (with about 40% of Lebanon being Christians, mostly Maronites), they sometimes instead attack Israel as being anti-Arabic. Which is a bit rich for a country founded by ethnic Greeks, and is ethnically diverse.
  9. Yukle

    US Politics: Follow the Money!

    Also, not to make a fine point of it or anything, but 60 Palestinians were shot during the embassy move. It's not that Americans disagreed with it, it's that it was a bargaining chip, and one that Trump gave up for absolutely nothing. And 60 Palestinians died. Should I state that again? 60 protesters died. Did you know that? They were shot by Israelis. After the embassy move. And Trump called it a good day. After people died. From bullet wounds. Fatal ones. I just reread your post and you said you were happy with the move. How the hell are you so cold about that?! The dead people, I mean. You don't think literally every person on earth saw that coming and that's why no previous President did it? Because they didn't want people to die? Like, for instance, the protesters, the ones who were shot dead? ETA: Seriously, @mcbigski, if your intention was to appeal to reason and state what you're not somehow broken in the skull, are you sure you don't want to clarify what you mean? As well as, you know, justify all of the other problems I've raised with Trump?
  10. Yukle

    US Politics: Follow the Money!

    Firstly, that comment was immediately followed by an assertion that you should say which of her policies you didn't like. Taking it out of context subverts its obvious intention: It was instead an invitation to state your reasoning - and that I would engage with that reasoning, no matter what it was or how guarded you may feel about it. Also, I think you're either lying or you are not remembering the campaign accurately. Those are not the reasons you voted for Trump because none of those things were campaign issues that he mentioned! You know what he did campaign on? Basically nothing other than a wall. That was almost his only consistent policy. Of all of the things you've mentioned, only the move to Jerusalem and the SC are policies that Trump consistently stated on the campaign trail. Are we to believe that you somehow magically knew that all of the other things would happen?! Even his tax plan isn't his plan at all, and he didn't even campaign for it. He did say he wanted to get rid of the AMT, but that was the only specific point he ever made. So, really, literally your only motivation that you could have known in advance was the SC pick. You can't have even known about the Iran deal, because it wasn't a point that Trump was consistent on. He clearly doesn't understand the terms of the deal, since he hasn't mentioned any specific grievances with it. The only point he raises is the "billion dollars cash" that was given to Iran. Which isn't even accurate, it was an agreement to lift sanctions. To say nothing of the fact that it's not the US's plan to scrap, the whole world is in on this, too. So why did you do it? What was your mindset at the time? Not with hindsight, which you are applying, but what was your active reason? Except Trump has openly slammed this aspect of America's government. He refuses to cooperate with any aspect of oversight, including the sycophantic congressional reviews of the election which were going to exonerate him anyway. When the courts struck down his Muslim ban he angrily shouted about how rigged the system is, so Trump clearly doesn't share your opinion in this matter. And why are you still refusing to acknowledge all of the issues I've raised with him? That's twice you've decided to swat them aside. There are yuge flaws in Trump's running of America, which are unprecedented in their scale of illegality. He has - despite your strange suggestion of no majority - a congressional majority. That's the only reason he hasn't been convicted of violating the emoluments clause, or been forced to take a firm stance against Russia.
  11. Yukle

    Would you rather?

    Easily Ned. Stannis wouldn't do a thing if I was outstanding in battle whereas Ned would at least appreciate it. Would you rather the North and Riverlands have won independence during the WoT5K or have a certain defeat of the Others without them crossing the Wall?
  12. Yukle

    US Politics: Follow the Money!

    Well, I'm already annoyed that mcbigski looked at my list of unpalatable things Trump has done and simply blew it off as if it's irrelevant. But I do want to genuinely engage, and will do so, so I'm awaiting an actual response: how is this good enough? The entire world is laughing at the USA's stupidity and I want to know why Trump voters think it's worth it. And it's not encouraging the response is to just pretend that nothing is wrong, but maybe mcbigski is considering what to write first, rather than ignoring my concerns.
  13. Yukle

    US Politics: Follow the Money!

    There has to be more to it than that. Especially your last sentence: Trump went bankrupt six times. He has a self-made fortune, and he refuses to disclose his tax returns. So I don't believe that's a valid reason for you, or it would also disqualify Trump. At the very least, you know how the Clintons made their money. You don't know how Trump made his, because he refuses to disclose it. So I dispute that as being a valid reason. If it's literally that you can't hack Clinton being a woman, then say it. If it was you don't agree with her policies, say which ones. Similarly, you've already decided that you will vote for him again, and you don't know his opponent. To me, it feels like you actively support him for who he is and you're too afraid to admit why. So tell us, what makes him so great that you would defend such a despicable human? Why aren't you at all bothered about the endorsement he got from the KKK that he refused to renounce? Similarly, you haven't responded to any of my criticisms about him. How do you justify this list, which I will copy and paste as I think it's insufficient not to respond to it?: The corruption, including all cabinet members who have been investigated so far being connected to Russia? Corruption such as paying for access at Mar-A-Lago, and billing the Secret Service at outrageous costs so they've already exceeded their protection budget? The nepotism? He has appointed inexperienced family members to government. The justification of literal Nazis marching in the USA chanting, "Jews will not replace us!" (which seems very eerie now)? The tax cuts for the wealthy? The woman leading the education department who lacks an education? The global warming denialist leading the EPA? The comically stupid lies about his affairs, his voting record, his penis size? His deranged call to Fox News which showed his unhinged mental state? His insistence that a black, man was an illegitimate President? His decision to leave the Iran deal, acting as though the USA - and only the USA - is allowed to have any vested interests? What about the big beautiful wall that Mexico will pay for? The free healthcare for everyone that he promised, that's better than the ACA? Seriously, what are your responses? The burden of proof is on you, here, to justify why you would re-elect such a person.
  14. Yukle

    US Politics: Follow the Money!

    Yeah, it's not easy when the political fight isn't being fought on the same terms. One side is arguing fact, the other emotion. One side believes facts are authoritative, the other that they're optional. There's also the fact that people who vote Trump know all of his flaws. They just don't care. They would care if Obama had done it, because he's black and a Democrat, but Trump is white and Republican so therefore it's fine.
  15. Yukle

    US Politics: Follow the Money!

    In fairness, Israeli nationalism isn't uniformly focused on oppression. Their most recent elections produced, as usual, a coalition government. Israel's future with Palestinians is - not surprisingly - the most divisive political issue. Some believe the best way forward is to return to the problematic original borders that the UK partitioned. Others to assume that the Jewish settlements prove a successful conquest over the entire nation, and therefore Palestinians are citizens of a larger Israel. Others that Israel has conquered the entire nation and giving up the Sinai peninsula was a concession in exchange for expelling non ethnic-Jewish people from Israel. But the "We get everything" message is very easy to tell. Political parties and groups agitating for more moderate stances argue among themselves about what such concessions will be. On the other hand, "We get everything" is simple, clear and easy to understand. Israel's elections are always fraught with tension and violence and not all Israelis are proud to see Palestinians killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2015
×