its humor did a great job of obscuring the fact that they had no study to actually back their claims up, cuz t-mobile's network is actually garbage and verizon destroys it in every test

I just texted my dad to say the exact same thing

as in, the real super bowl mvp, not the official one which will somehow be peyton if the broncos win

can we talk about the avocado commercial please

As a very casual follower of QW, can you explain to me how it ended up with so many one-map specialists? After hearing people like Thooorin and ddk praise Milton as probably the best QW player ever, and lamenting that he reached his peak so relatively late in the game's life cycle, I looked up a forum argument over who was better between him and Dag. It seemed like all the more knowledgeable guys were saying there was no contest, because Dag was only better on his beloved dm6. Why did it turn out that way?

P.S. I didn't reply to any of Marxist's posts one-by-one because they're all pretty damn accurate and I want em to stand on their own merits

aaaand I'm done

While I don't dispute that the DNC worked very hard to cull the field of any candidates that could possibly make their boo Hillary look bad in any capacity (and only failed with Sanders himself because of his popularity), it's not like Larry Lessig would actually have a chance. I like the guy's stances on intellectual property and campaign finance, but he's more Dennis Kucinich than Bernie in all honesty.

shut the fuck up

Hear, hear!

You can't use autism as an excuse for poor reading comprehension and a racist, sexist, myopic worldview.

there will always be a giant percentage of people who vote for candidates for really stupid reasons, if doing so gives us a progressive candidate even if it's by accident than I can't complain

I understand the importance of stressing how conservative politics in the US are compared to most developed countries, but I think this comparison has become a bit of an over-generalisation, that ignores the very real move to the right that has occurred in the UK, Australia, and Canada

With Labour candidates like Tony Blair or Kevin Rudd, and Conservatives like David Cameron or Stephen Harper, the dial in those countries have shifted a lot. Comparing Bernie Sanders to New Labour is pretty ridiculous tbh. Now, in most continental European countries, where the "Center-Left" mainstream party is usually called something like the Socialist Party or the Workers' Party, the comparison is apt. However, the UK is closer to the US than you realize. The biggest difference is the infrastructure that is already in place in those countries, which were generally created by the older and more leftist versions of the parties that you mention in your comparison. For instance, I'm sure David Cameron is equally as opposed to the concept of centralized health care as any Republican in the US, but given how much more progressive their single-payer system is than our system that still contains private health insurance companies, any "reform" he makes will still leave their health care system more progressive than a Democrat has been able to make ours so far.

I understand you were just making a point to the majority of the people on here who are from the U.S., but I bet there are a few brits or aussies or canadians reading what you wrote with a bit of a confused expression on their faces.

when u assume u make an ass out of uma thurman

aside from the many things I don't agree with libertarians on, the problem with the libertarians that run under the banner of the Republican party is that they end up tailoring their message by making everything about state's rights, meaning that they don't actually back up all their progressive views on social issues by expecting the government to at least secure those liberties nationwide

what good is a candidate whose rhetoric is pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-war on drugs etc. if they let all the conservative southern states exercise the exact opposite viewpoint

unfortunately, even the more reasonable ones are suckered into the hilarious circus that every Republican debate has become, it feels like they spend about 3% of each debate talking about literally ANY actual policy at all

and it feels like that because it is like that

I have to say, I'm really not a fan of these arguments from authority. You don't need to be an economist to be able to compare the effects of, say, supply-side versus progressive taxation, or regulation versus deregulation of investment banks. Historical patterns are pretty strong and most theoretical models by the so-called "Chicago School" make ridiculous assumptions that no one could ever possibly agree with if they were using common sense.

Same on the military point, for three major reasons:

1) Some presidents (particularly Dubya) have really small inner circles that do not extend to the actual military brass in the Pentagon, and often they do things that top generals explicitly warn against.

2) There's a difference between operational expertise and international relations expertise. A general might tell you the best way to, say, prevent looting or restore an electrical grid in an occupation, but they won't necessarily give you the best advice on international support or lack thereof, or even a broader understanding of the moral challenges of asymmetrical warfare.

3) Even well-meaning military personnel are generally biased towards spending more on defense and putting more boots in the ground. Unless you believe that's the correct solution for literally every foreign policy quagmire, they can't always be right.

I don't even know if I should dignify this post with a response but, aside from mr. owl's very obvious point that none of this comment is at all relevant to the fact that your reasoning was awful (the youth supporting bernie sanders should be an effect of policies that they respond to, not a cause for yet more youth to immediately latch on unless they're extremely shallow), I feel I should address the ad hominem in your post by saying:

I don't mind if people exploit my absurd hours in any number of ways- calling me a no lifer, nerd virgin, etc. however, let me tell you a little bit about myself outside of tf2. I'm a political science major at Amherst College, I've worked for two NYC area politicians as well as interned for the Obama campaign in 2008 (and I spoke at a platform meeting about the importance of stem cell research), I worked last summer for the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and I was a human rights volunteer for a little bit in South Africa

you can make all sorts of assumptions about the lack of a social life or whatnot that my tf2 playtime creates, but this is the one area where I am confident I still know a lot on

having seen your original post, you should probably complain to the government/history/poli sci/whatever department at your school for having a ridiculously overly simplistic view of american politics, one that is being challenged in every debate or primary/caucus we have seen so far

there are a few underlying assumptions to the view that only "moderate" candidates like clinton or rubio can win nationally, such as

1) the notion that swing voters are all centrists who are searching for a moderate voice

2) the notion that elections are decided by substantive policy decisions rather than concepts such as being a washington outsider or appearing to be more honest/unrehearsed/less of a standard politician

3) ignorance of the truth that, if people voted based on pure self-interest, the democratic candidate would win every election because their economic policies are inherently redistributive

all of these assumptions are flawed, and less moderate candidates (or those perceived as less moderate) often win primaries or even general elections

I can never tell if people who create memes like this actually believe shit like that

I'm assuming they usually don't but you can never tell anymore

debating politics on the internet might be an exercise in futility in terms of converting those who are entrenched in their kooky positions but if apolitical randoms happen to click on it it's nice to give them an informed viewpoint to counterbalance the fuckery of racism and slogans repeated with no knowledge of a subject matter

because I'm bad at letting stupid posts go ima do a quick read through of this thread and call people out

also, even if one were to try to argue that melee were harder than starcraft (which seems wrong to me but I profess some ignorance on the topic) purely from a potential skill ceiling perspective, koreans play sc meaning the game has been taken further, it's that simple

the level of infrastructure bw had in korea was pretty nutty and will prolly never be matched, it was just this perfect cultural moment that could only happen in that mid period of esports from like 2005 to 2010 or so