HOWEVER. And this is a huge issue, the down ticket will suffer BIG TIME for the Ds.
I don't think the executive action is as powerful as you think it is, although it is more powerful than people realize. And less powerful. It's weird. People think Obama's using it to literally trample on their rights. Like, manifest them as physical objects to trample on them. And then they simultaneously think he can't do anything of note with them. But mostly, it's a directorial thing. Choose to spend the money that Congress has allocated for these things that Congress has enacted. And choose how to spend that money. There's a deceptive amount of stuff you can do with it, because it's all bureaucracy.“Bureaucratic policymaking is the hallmark of modern American government.” -- Daniel Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy (2001). I could have picked any number of similar quotes and studies on this point. The Headless Fourth Branch of our gov't is incredibly influential.
And all of that federal policy making? I don't think there will be a functional difference between the two. ... She's slightly right of center, he's right of center, with a far right twinge at times as Bhu said.
Now it's possible you think President HRC would be extremely different from Senator HRC, ideologically. But, it'd take a huge swing to make her right of center. Unless you believe the whole Democratic party is right of center ...In many ways... they are. If you compare us to most other democratic nations, we're way, way to the right. I think part of what's going on with the popularity of Bernie is that he represents a disenfranchised group of people who are sick of how right-ish the Dems have been (i.e. they've sold out to big business), and want to swing the pendulum back to the left.
Oh yeah, definitely. I was speaking relative to the United States. The left/right continuum maps differently for other countries.Now it's possible you think President HRC would be extremely different from Senator HRC, ideologically. But, it'd take a huge swing to make her right of center. Unless you believe the whole Democratic party is right of center ...In many ways... they are. If you compare us to most other democratic nations, we're way, way to the right.
And there's....I'll see if I can find it, an article from somewhere....but it has the major candidates on a normalized spectrum. Bernie on the far left, Clinton almost dead center but slightly right, and then the rest off to the far right.I don't know how to say this nicely, but the "normalized" scale is well ... bullshit. Not that the author is wrong at the gross level of things, he's put people in the right order. But, the space between them? The idea that Neoliberal is exactly at the midpoint between Liberal and Conservative (whatever all those mean precisely) is just him making it up.
EDIT: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html
how he views American politics. Well, he and a CandianWell if some guy got together with a Canadian on it....
Hillary on the right? :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao Only if you are somewhere between Stalin and Mussolini. Actually that would explain a lot of general seeming 'stupidity' from the boards about anything political\historical; it's not stupidity, its just crazy fascism.
Good luck trying to do some basic education Unbeliever. You have more patience than I.how he views American politics. Well, he and a CandianWell if some guy got together with a Canadian on it....
Hillary is considered to the right for several reasons...
Is she leftist? Not by any means whatsoever. Nor is she right. She's an opportunist who will say anything or do anything necessary to get ahead. She'd turn right in a moment if she thought it would benefit her in some instance, except for the fact that she's poisoned that well. So now she has only one audience to pander to, and she has to move sharply to the left to do it, the way she moved left before when she ran for NY senator. In appearance she's become more liberal, and even begun to vote more liberal. But is that what she wants, or just what she sees herself needing to do to get what she wants?I'm not as concerned about opportunism as many people seem to be. If a candidate adopts a set of policy positions b/c their constituency wants it that doesn't necessarily bother me. It's one view of representative politics, the Edmund Burke one where you pick the person and trust them to use their best judgment being the other one. I'm not sure one has anything better to say than the other, and in the modern world of polling I think the Burkean vision, if it really worked, isn't practical.
tl;dr: Clinton is as much as socialist as Donald Trump is an Evangelical Christian.
Charles Koch implies possible support for hillary over GOP nomineeWell, when the other option is a return to the gold standard ...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-2016/
Things like this are the other reason liberals see Hillary as Conservative. Conservatives are willing to cross over to vote for her, because they say she's Bush-lite.
Things like this are the other reason liberals see Hillary as Conservative. Conservatives are willing to cross over to vote for her, because they say she's Bush-lite.
One of the biggest reasons it's problematic is that in election years, sentences are harsher. Judges run on being tough on crime, not fair and impartial.Yeah, one of my colleagues did a great study on that. Running for reelection is probably the biggest problem, now that I have a cup of coffee and am thinking of that.
The problem with electing judges is that you end up getting demagogues and yahoos with little to no legal experience running and getting a lot of votes because of it.
Take North Carolina, for instance. We let our State Supreme Court justices run for office like Senators and Governors. We ended up getting a lot of fundamentalist Christians running who believed that the First Amendment applied to only Christians and Jews because they define "freedom of religion" as being the sole province of the Abrahamic God. Muslims, Druze, and other Abrahamic monotheists don't count because reasons.
The problem with electing judges is that you end up getting demagogues and yahoos with little to no legal experience running and getting a lot of votes because of it.
Take North Carolina, for instance. We let our State Supreme Court justices run for office like Senators and Governors. We ended up getting a lot of fundamentalist Christians running who believed that the First Amendment applied to only Christians and Jews because they define "freedom of religion" as being the sole province of the Abrahamic God. Muslims, Druze, and other Abrahamic monotheists don't count because reasons.
Talk about an education failure (on their part).
Mostly venting, but yes a prediction involved. However, let me address a couple of your points. On the Hillary being unpopular: that is not up for debate. She is. Her net favorability rating is something like -25. Trumps is the only one worse at around -40.Vent away. In my opinion politics is a rough, frustrating business.
The only one with a positive is Sanders at something like +10. And people have been voting for the "socialist". Independents and progressive Democrats have been. In contests where anyone can vote, Bernie has been winning by a lot.In the Democratic primary. Primaries are a narrow subset of the electorate. It is hard to overstate how big a deal this is. On top of that, the Democratic Primary involves lopping off the rightward-leaning side of the spectrum. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all/most states with open primaries (i.e., you can vote regardless of party affiliation) still only allow you to vote once. Right-leaning people mostly vote in the GOP election, it's (a) much closer and less decided, and (b) the one that matters to them.
We have one of the worst turnouts in the developed world. And Sanders has been getting first time voters out where he can (re: open state primaries). In states where turnout is large, he wins. I repeat for effect: in states where turnout is large, he wins. This is decidedly not just young people. It's also people who haven't voted because they've had no candidate. So yes. There is a rather significant portion of progressives out there that is untapped.I feel like you can just do find/replace for Sanders for Obama here. I'm not saying these facts are untrue (although I feel like turnout has been pretty good in recent presidential elections?). But, I fail to have noticed a massive progressive groundswell in the past 8 years. Kind of the opposite, actually.
Until you look at actual preferences of policies. Most progressive policies are well received by a majority of Americans, and most conservative ones aren't.I think there's a lot of truth in this. Fiorina's "Culture War?", which presumably has been updated, makes this point. And, while I question some of his methods, Mo's a smart guy.
As for the labels? Obama is left of center. Hillary is at best dead center. And that's for American spectrum of politics. She's way too hawkish to be considered a liberal. She's espoused support for a LOT of conservative view points over the years, so I am very skeptical of this new, more progressive Hillary**.I feel like I addressed this in earlier posts, so I won't retread it. All I'll reiterate is that there is no dead center in US politics. It simply doesn't exist. Clinton could be the most conservative Democrat currently around, and she'd still be substantially more liberal than the median of the Republican party, which the current GOP candidates are far to the right of anyway. Except for Donald Trump b/c only god knows what his ideology is.
In my defense, I feel like I've said absolutely nothing about Hillary's popularity. So, beat me up on the stupid crap I say (of which there is no doubt plenty). Not the stupid crap I don't say.
In the Democratic primary. Primaries are a narrow subset of the electorate. It is hard to overstate how big a deal this is. On top of that, the Democratic Primary involves lopping off the rightward-leaning side of the spectrum. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all/most states with open primaries (i.e., you can vote regardless of party affiliation) still only allow you to vote once. Right-leaning people mostly vote in the GOP election, it's (a) much closer and less decided, and (b) the one that matters to them.
So, when you say "Independents" you mean "Independents on the left side of the spectrum." Further, you mean "among primary voters." That's a really big difference.
I feel like you can just do find/replace for Sanders for Obama here. I'm not saying these facts are untrue (although I feel like turnout has been pretty good in recent presidential elections?). But, I fail to have noticed a massive progressive groundswell in the past 8 years. Kind of the opposite, actually.
This posits that there are literally millions of people who think "y'know, that Obama guy just isn't doing it for me, and so rather than hold my nose and vote for him, or my local progressive candidate, I'm going to let [insert extremely conservative candidate here] run the country and/or stonewall everything." I've seen no evidence that there are millions of people this stubborn. It also neglects that there are thousands of people who tirelessly work to reach them.
I feel like I addressed this in earlier posts, so I won't retread it. All I'll reiterate is that there is no dead center in US politics. It simply doesn't exist. Clinton could be the most conservative Democrat currently around, and she'd still be substantially more liberal than the median of the Republican party, which the current GOP candidates are far to the right of anyway. Except for Donald Trump b/c only god knows what his ideology is.
As to the labels of "true progressive" or not, I can't speak to that. I feel like once we start going there (a) I don't have really anything to add other than my own opinion, and (b) we're a short hop away from convening a holy synod.
I only found out last week that you have elected judges.
I am completely lost on why anyone decided to politicise what was intended to be the branch of government that is independent of (direct, at least) politics.
btw, when I said I have no choice for Senate earlier? This is the better of the two (R) options I have. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/indiana-senate-candidate-paid-relative-170k-for-past-campaign-work/2016/04/30/abd8af96-0ef3-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html)You have my sympathy and empathy. Just a couple of years ago I was living in Texas ...
The other one somehow combines most of the worst aspects of Trump AND Cruz into one candidate. Our (D) candidate isn't a good campaigner, and IN typically votes (R) blindly in down ticket votes. Oh, and no legitimate third party candidate of course.
"It's not supporting/anti-supporting a candidate" is not a valid defense when the ads say "stop this person!"To be fair, the Supreme Court has adopted this position for about a decade ... see FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL II) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/06-969P.ZO).
In light of these considerations, a court should find that an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Under this test, WRTLís three ads are plainly not the functional equivalent of express advocacy. First, their content is consistent with that of a genuine issue ad: The ads focus on a legislative issue, take a position on the issue, exhort the public to adopt that position, and urge the public to contact public officials with respect to the matter. Second, their content lacks indicia of express advocacy: The ads do not mention an election, candidacy, political party, or challenger; and they do not take a position on a candidateís character, qualifications, or fitness for office.Although this Supreme Court has been almost monomaniacally committed to destroying the asinine system of campaign finance laws we (used to) have.
Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for president.
Cruz dropped out. No candidate can unseat Trump now. He will get to 1237 before the convention. He's at 1100 now, and he'll get at least 100 in California. There's what, 10 left? He can't fail to get that. Like, unless he gets less than 20% of the vote in each one remaining. A new Rasmussen poll shows him leading in the general election against Hillary by 2 points.
Sanders wins Indiana though!
Don't know if anyone else noticed, but Nevada....kind of asploded....It's hard getting accurate news outlet's covering of what happened, considering that WaPo's article on what happened was pretty much the exact opposite of what happened, according to multiple eye witness accounts and video of the event. I don't put Salon up there with the most prestigious of news sources, but they have it pretty much right here (https://www.salon.com/2016/05/16/what_the_hell_just_happened_in_nevada_sanders_supporters_are_fed_up_and_rightfully_so/), although not everything that happened was covered.
A quick recap: basically, the Nevada arm of the DNC voted behind closed doors to change the rules and passed it by themselves, ignoring the rules saying a vote at the convention needs to be held. This rules change included ignoring the 2nd level of convention, which in Clark County flipped the votes for Bernie rather than Hillary. So they retroactively took two delegates away from Bernie and gave them to Hillary. Then they gave the chair of NV sole authority over the convention. Then later on, at the convention, they took a vote before the convention started on how to allocate the delegates from the state level. The chair later on called for a vote on the finalization of an inaccurate count. Seconded it herself, passed it, asked for yays, ended the convention, and walked out. This ignored the larger volume of 'nay' votes.
You missed the part where they prevented 62 delegates from even entering the convention, and the follow up where they bullshitted that hotel security made them shut down abruptly over the raucous. Overall, epic douchebaggery from the Dems. They've been way better at cheating this primary than the Publicans.
I totally understand it. I wish it wasn't so, but that's how the human mind works, especially in this electoral environment. The best thing you can do to combat it is just start changing the system. It's slow, painful, and awkward, but it'll work eventually. When we shift the paradigm from "only two parties ever" to "choose the best candidate" we'll be better off as a nation, as a people, as a world.With first past the post voting -- i.e., non-proportional voting -- there will be 2 parties that are in contention. It's not some personal failing or psychological issue or some dumb American thing. It's a natural consequence of the voting system. Even advocating for a third party to be recognized means you really just want to replace one of the 2 major parties.
I was referring to the "not with=against" thing. But it does apply to FPTP voting, it's why FPTP voting fails so often. And I would like to point out that other nations have more than two parties in FPTP style voting, but would append that with the fact that their 'younger' and eventually, given no change in style of voting, it'll be whittled down to a mere two parties.
And for the bit about voting 3rd party to replace a major party? Well, kind of. My goal would be to break up the two parties, and this is the easiest way. After that is broken, we can start working on a better voting system. But until it is, we can't.
Her in IN, it will likely not be contested, and if it is, it won't matter anyways. We almost never matter in an election. And I refuse to vote for someone who will hurt me and my fellow man, and I will almost certainly never vote for someone who has personally insulted me, and I will vote my conscience, and I will vote for the best candidate.
In terms of this type of politics yes, and you aren't even in the same type of elections system as us, your prime minister isn't elected. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you primarily two parties as well? Like, India. India's been on its own for what, 50 years? They have a lot of parties. And it's getting smaller. Some places have seemingly stabilized at 3, but without changing things really, I think it'll be reduced to 2 eventually.
But you aren't electing in the same way was my point. Back in 1707 you still had a monarch calling the shots. When did that stop and the monarch lose all real power?
Yes, I have Ryan as a non-zero win chance. Because of a complicated thing called "everything explodes". Essentially, Gary Johnson takes one state, really any state, but the bigger the more likely this happens. And the more states the more likely. But I think he only has any shot in one or two states at most. Anyways, then he 'blows up' the electoral map in such a way that there's no winner, as in no one gets to 270, and the House decides the next president, they choose Ryan. I think that percentage is lower than 5, but non zero so i put it as 5.
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority,
then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
http://gawker.com/stripping-libertarian-candidate-exercises-right-to-bare-1779427600 :lol
:)Oh my god... I thought this had to be a joke... until I googled it! :o :twitch
Trump got endorsed by North Korea.
theyre now saying it may take several days to declare california
Welp, there goes my theory that Obama was opposing Clinton in the background. Obama endorsed Clinton.
Too bad Obama, but I'll sink his legacy along with the Hilltanic if need be. I just hope this doesn't mean he'll get in the way of any FBI investigation. Speaking of which, superdelegate Comey needs to step it up. I don't want 4 years of indictments, impeachments, and gridlock while progressives die.
theyre now saying it may take several days to declare california
That's interesting, any word on this? I need a little bit of good news, now that it seems we're locked into the bad future route. Do I want the slow death or the quick death?
The only thing is the FBI thing though. I dunno, I think I'd hold off until everything is completed before I do endorsements. Obama's done a lot of questionable stuff in the past which I gave him a pass for, because usually it was Republicans forcing his hand or blocking things, but no one forced him to endorse now.Whatever your judgment on what should be done, the odds of an indictment seem spectacularly low to me. I'd be willing to wager good money against it.
Welp, there goes my theory that Obama was opposing Clinton in the background. Obama endorsed Clinton.
Too bad Obama, but I'll sink his legacy along with the Hilltanic if need be. I just hope this doesn't mean he'll get in the way of any FBI investigation. Speaking of which, superdelegate Comey needs to step it up. I don't want 4 years of indictments, impeachments, and gridlock while progressives die.theyre now saying it may take several days to declare california
That's interesting, any word on this? I need a little bit of good news, now that it seems we're locked into the bad future route. Do I want the slow death or the quick death?
Welp, there goes my theory that Obama was opposing Clinton in the background. Obama endorsed Clinton.
Too bad Obama, but I'll sink his legacy along with the Hilltanic if need be. I just hope this doesn't mean he'll get in the way of any FBI investigation. Speaking of which, superdelegate Comey needs to step it up. I don't want 4 years of indictments, impeachments, and gridlock while progressives die.theyre now saying it may take several days to declare california
That's interesting, any word on this? I need a little bit of good news, now that it seems we're locked into the bad future route. Do I want the slow death or the quick death?
Was declared for Hillary next day, with the usual shenanigans of people being kicked off polls on dem side only, machines not working, polls not being opened etc.
So I was a last minute delegate for Sanders in VA! It's been a rough few days, with a big power out Thursday and chaotic schedule up til now, but we're back in action!Do you get to go to the convention, or is it just for VA?
So I was a last minute delegate for Sanders in VA! It's been a rough few days, with a big power out Thursday and chaotic schedule up til now, but we're back in action!Do you get to go to the convention, or is it just for VA?
Supposedly there was an attempt on Trump's life, at his latest rally.
Dude from England, tried to grab a cop's gun.
idk any other details, they'd be tightlipped about it regardless.
The Pandora CEO was on CNBC yesterday and saidHonestly, zip code alone probably gives you a pretty good shot. Add in the music tastes, which will correlate with other factors about a person that are reasonably predictive, and you're probably gonna do pretty well. I'm pretty sure Rage Against the Machine leads to a certain political leaning.
if they know your Zip Code and what kind of music you prefer
they can pick your political views with 90% accuracy.
That's amazing ... (trying to not immediately call it Wrong by inclination, but big data is big data)
Might be on this video, idk can't view right now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhrhv4Qm5g
I thought, and still tend to think, that this Brexit thing will turn out like early US history. Where the states at first combined to form the Articles of Confederation, saw it wasn't working, and came up with something better rather than giving up. A unified Europe just makes too much sense when you have the likes of the US, Russia, and China on the world stage.
Though hopefully, Europe can avoid that thing we did 74 years later ...
It's not the trade that's the issue, it's being a huge financial gateway.
How about this guy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/tom-brower-hawaii_n_4299256.html)? He was even stopped by a real life group of heroes (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hawaii-state-rep-tom-brower-beaten-homeless-people-article-1.2276005)!
I voted Green last time. Because they're actually Liberals, unlike the Democrats. This time I'm going full Libertarian.Do not give in to the counter-revolutionaries, comrade! We must show solidarity!
Welp, justice is dead. (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system) Was a good run, proceed with the shitshow.
That being said, I am buying ponchos.Welp, justice is dead. (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system) Was a good run, proceed with the shitshow.
Let's see with the DoJ does before deciding that it's all a shitshow.
Hillary is nobody’s idea of perfect. Fine. But in my view if a man with her qualifications were running in the Democratic primary, Bernie would have been done before he even started. And if a man with her qualifications had been running for the Republicans, they’d be anointing him the next Reagan while trying to sneak his face onto Mount Rushmore.I didn't realize that I was going to vote for Jill Stein because I'm too sexist to support America's first female president!
Bernie endorsed ... and looked quite idk between :-\ and >:( standing behind H.
Pence is still on the list. I doubt Newt's gonna be it, heck his job was so much easier than Boehner's with no tea no nos.
The 3rd is a miitary guy who has been Publicly on camera pro-choice ... which is a conniption-able offense, I do say.
Poll of under 30s, had it about 40 20 20 20 for Hill Trump Libertarian and Green (lost the link for this).
CNN latest has it 42 38 9 7 nationally.
Buy an entry level pump shotgun, a wide variety of ammo, and prepare for the Trump Riots.
Bernie endorsed ... and looked quite idk between :-\ and >:( standing behind H.
Pence is still on the list. I doubt Newt's gonna be it, heck his job was so much easier than Boehner's with no tea no nos.
The 3rd is a miitary guy who has been Publicly on camera pro-choice ... which is a conniption-able offense, I do say.
Poll of under 30s, had it about 40 20 20 20 for Hill Trump Libertarian and Green (lost the link for this).
CNN latest has it 42 38 9 7 nationally.
....well, I suppose it's time to go Jill Stien and bunker down for 4 years.
I think it's the confluence of Trump supporters who've not changed position, people who've got nobody to support and just decided to attack the person who's (not really, blame voters) responsible for that, and seeing it when I'm trying to entertain myself. Also the constant attempts to encapsulate how much of a mess any high-ranking law issues are in a single meme or soundbite. If you aren't a legal scholar, please stop bleating that it must be illegal when you only have room for two sentences.
Though the people who've gone from Bernie to Trump baffle me. Did they pay any attention?
You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.Serious question: what is Hillary's stance on our drone strike programs, and the civilian casulities they incur? Or are we still defining all dead individuals between 16 and 60 as terrorists?
Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.Serious question: what is Hillary's stance on our drone strike programs, and the civilian casulities they incur? Or are we still defining all dead individuals between 16 and 60 as terrorists?
Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.Serious question: what is Hillary's stance on our drone strike programs, and the civilian casulities they incur? Or are we still defining all dead individuals between 16 and 60 as terrorists?
Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.Serious question: what is Hillary's stance on our drone strike programs, and the civilian casulities they incur? Or are we still defining all dead individuals between 16 and 60 as terrorists?
Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
I'm not going to trust the person who's running on a campaign of building walls and not working with other companies to retain peaceful actions when given any level of control over the world's largest military.
I have no problem with the use of drones. In fact, I'd prefer them be used. They are more accurate than a fighter-bomber, and less expensive, and safer. I do have a problem with how they've been used. But I think it's missing a bit of the point saying Obama's used more drones than all other presidents combined, because he's had them, and better ones, his whole presidency, and Bush didn't see them until later on. There's some other considerations at play, as this is a very complex issue, and I think the biggest drawback is that because they're so cheap and easy, they're more likely to be used. However they are safer with regards to civilian casualties than the alternatives. In my view they are a tool that can be very useful if used correctly.
As for Clinton's view, it's probably similar to that, with the addendum that for her the 'more likely to be used' thing is not a drawback, so she would be more likely to use them prolifically than I would. And by that I mean she'd actually use them, because she'd be very active in militaristic strategies.
You, and everyone expressing this sentiment, are driving me insane. Mostly the people posting one preachy message at a time.Serious question: what is Hillary's stance on our drone strike programs, and the civilian casulities they incur? Or are we still defining all dead individuals between 16 and 60 as terrorists?
Going by what I've seen, you'd think Hillary was proposing everyone eat babies once a week and Trump was a saint now.
I'm not going to trust the person who's running on a campaign of building walls and not working with other companies to retain peaceful actions when given any level of control over the world's largest military.
And would you care to answer the question at any point?
Of course you need a wide variety! Silver for werewolves, iron for faeries, wood for vampires, depleted uranium, blessed, you name it. Best to have a magazine with one of each so you can test what kind of ammo you need and switch to the right magazine for total annihilation. :DBuy an entry level pump shotgun, a wide variety of ammo, and prepare for the Trump Riots.
I would not recommend a "wide variety of ammo", really if you are going to be thinking about the possibility of shooting a person with a shotgun you want "Double aught" Buckshot or maybe slugs.
Honestly though I would recommend an intermediate caliber carbine well before a shotgun, it will cost a little more but is far more effective for home defense.
Of course you need a wide variety! Silver for werewolves, iron for faeries, wood for vampires, depleted uranium, blessed, you name it. Best to have a magazine with one of each so you can test what kind of ammo you need and switch to the right magazine for total annihilation. :DBuy an entry level pump shotgun, a wide variety of ammo, and prepare for the Trump Riots.
I would not recommend a "wide variety of ammo", really if you are going to be thinking about the possibility of shooting a person with a shotgun you want "Double aught" Buckshot or maybe slugs.
Honestly though I would recommend an intermediate caliber carbine well before a shotgun, it will cost a little more but is far more effective for home defense.
Just to be clear: We both know the answer is that Hillary Clinton, while not the type to eat babies, will occasionally send a Hellfire missile their way?
:P :D ... kudos to DMan on his Trump Mind Meld.
Don't be rediculous, voters disapprove of baby eating.
That reminds me, we killed over 80 pre-terrorists in Syria.Just to be clear: We both know the answer is that Hillary Clinton, while not the type to eat babies, will occasionally send a Hellfire missile their way?
Hillary Clinton is the type to eat babies, next up on Fox News.
Just to be clear: We both know the answer is that Hillary Clinton, while not the type to eat babies, will occasionally send a Hellfire missile their way?
Hillary Clinton is the type to eat babies, next up on Fox News.
That reminds me, we killed over 80 pre-terrorists in Syria.
So...Wikileaks released a bunch of emails to/from the DNC and (D)s. In it, the DNC and its employees discuss preventing Sanders from doing anything, call his supporters 'Bernie Bros' and 'the insurgency'. Tried to use his religion to discredit him to voters. There's hidden donations, and an email from them to donor about how the donor shouldn't email them at all. There's a wealth of issue that need to be addressed in it, and....wow. They even sent an email to Chuck Todd to tell him to "stop this". What?Holy crap this is awesome. :lol I so hope this blows up in their fucking faces at the convention. I have to be in Philly just a few days after it is over. I'm tempted to drive up there a bit early just to go watch the shitstorm. (Although... I still want Trump to lose... more than I care about the DNC's corruption... sadly... So I'll probably still vote for Hillary... :banghead)
EDIT: Also, apparently needing to appeal more to conservatives, Hillary has chosen Tim Kaine as her running mate.
Join the Green Party. There are dozens of us. DOZENS!So...Wikileaks released a bunch of emails to/from the DNC and (D)s. In it, the DNC and its employees discuss preventing Sanders from doing anything, call his supporters 'Bernie Bros' and 'the insurgency'. Tried to use his religion to discredit him to voters. There's hidden donations, and an email from them to donor about how the donor shouldn't email them at all. There's a wealth of issue that need to be addressed in it, and....wow. They even sent an email to Chuck Todd to tell him to "stop this". What?Holy crap this is awesome. :lol I so hope this blows up in their fucking faces at the convention. I have to be in Philly just a few days after it is over. I'm tempted to drive up there a bit early just to go watch the shitstorm. (Although... I still want Trump to lose... more than I care about the DNC's corruption... sadly... So I'll probably still vote for Hillary... :banghead)
EDIT: Also, apparently needing to appeal more to conservatives, Hillary has chosen Tim Kaine as her running mate.
So...Wikileaks released a bunch of emails to/from the DNC and (D)s. In it, the DNC and its employees discuss preventing Sanders from doing anything, call his supporters 'Bernie Bros' and 'the insurgency'. Tried to use his religion to discredit him to voters. There's hidden donations, and an email from them to donor about how the donor shouldn't email them at all. There's a wealth of issue that need to be addressed in it, and....wow. They even sent an email to Chuck Todd to tell him to "stop this". What?Holy crap this is awesome. :lol I so hope this blows up in their fucking faces at the convention. I have to be in Philly just a few days after it is over. I'm tempted to drive up there a bit early just to go watch the shitstorm. (Although... I still want Trump to lose... more than I care about the DNC's corruption... sadly... So I'll probably still vote for Hillary... :banghead)
EDIT: Also, apparently needing to appeal more to conservatives, Hillary has chosen Tim Kaine as her running mate.
Vote anyways. If someone hasn't earned your vote, then fuck 'em.
We've hit Peak McCarthyism. The (R)s are doing it in the neo-McCarthy method of accusing people are secret Muslims and such. The Dems are now doing it the old school way, blaming the WikiLeaks hack on the Russians to try to help Trump.The crucial difference, as always, is that there is some actual evidence that Russians were involved in the latter.
To bad the race is mostly between Trump and Clinton. If any of the third party candidates had a real shot at winning I'd vote for one of them instead. I really hate this election cycle.I'm old enough to remember the 2000 Election Cycle, which informs my feelings on this quarter.
While there is evidence of Russians hacking the DNC, what there is no evidence of is them helping Trump. Basically the whole thing was essentially "uh....LOOK THE RUSSIANS EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO THAT". It reeked of using a foreign "other" to sway politics, the 'otherism' that defined McCarthyism.I'm going to brush past your repeated invocations of McCarthyism as internet hyperbole. It does a disservice to the actual harms that McCarthy caused. Although I'm not disputing what you're saying about the tactic of the Dems, I didn't really pay that much attention to it. The false equivalency thing, which has plagued us for decades now, does bug me, though.
I'm also old enough to remember the 2000 election. I'd venture a guess to say my feelings on it are different? I don't blame Nader for Gore's loss, at all. I think it's wrong to blame him for it. If he didn't run, it's likely Gore would have won, but there were a lot of other problems. Gore wasn't a strong candidate for one, and you can blame the SCOTUS a bit as well. In other words, much like all politics, it wasn't a simple 'who's at fault'. Bush was a very strong candidate that year. 2004 was much different, but defeating an incumbent is very hard to do.Listen, you and I can't actually talk politics. I mentioned a personal feeling about a major past event, one that informed my current feelings, and you jumped to this blame game nonsense. I've read enough of this thread to understand the passionate, but frankly combative and high-minded perspective you take on these issues.
Vote anyways. If someone hasn't earned your vote, then fcvk 'em.
That's one way for them to earn your vote...
Well, it's officially over now.
Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump. I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B. I wonder what happens now.
Well, it's officially over now.
Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump. I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B. I wonder what happens now.
The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?
Except for those parts laughing.
But what's this stuff I've heard about Bernie being nominated to run for president at the DNC convention today? Or yesterday, W/e.
???
Well, it's officially over now.
Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump. I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B. I wonder what happens now.
The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?
Except for those parts laughing.
Yup.
(Unrelated side note, check your PMs. I've been looking for you.)
Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.Some of us were always going to vote Green.
I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.Some of us were always going to vote Green.
I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Not me, of course. I've always been trying to summon Cthulhu.
It seems disingenuous to me to put lots of time and effort into affecting the outcome of a party selection process... then to promptly turn your back and sabotage it when lots of people disagree with you.Thoughts on #NeverTrump?
Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.Some of us were always going to vote Green.
I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Not me, of course. I've always been trying to summon Cthulhu.
It seems disingenuous to me to put lots of time and effort into affecting the outcome of a party selection process... then to promptly turn your back and sabotage it when lots of people disagree with you.Thoughts on #NeverTrump?
theres always the nihilist party"We're nihilists Lebowski! We believe in nothing!" (Great image by the way. You made me look that guy up. :P )
theres always the nihilist party"We're nihilists Lebowski! We believe in nothing!" (Great image by the way. You made me look that guy up. :P )
But what's this stuff I've heard about Bernie being nominated to run for president at the DNC convention today? Or yesterday, W/e.
???
It just meant they were including him on the list to vote on, rather than what they were going to do and ignore that he ever existed.
Because right now is the most pragmatic time to choose idealogical principles? Both stinking parties are mid meltdown. Libertarian Gary Johnson is climbing in the polls, and actually stands a strong chance of making it to the Presidential Debates. A conservative that isn't a clown is appealing to many typical Republican voters. Green candidate Jill Stein is polling lower, and has a lower national presence, but like Johnson is actually on enough ballots to have the opportunity to win. She isn't on every ballot, last I heard, unlike the other three, so her odds are even thinner. Then again, the DNC corruption is bound to send folks her way. And should Stein and Johnson play spoiler and create a contested election, Johnson probably has a better chance of winning in Congress than anyone else, but especially poison pill Trumpy.Well, it's officially over now.
Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump. I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B. I wonder what happens now.
The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?
Except for those parts laughing.
Yup.
(Unrelated side note, check your PMs. I've been looking for you.)
Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.
I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Because right now is the most pragmatic time to choose idealogical principles? Both stinking parties are mid meltdown. Libertarian Gary Johnson is climbing in the polls, and actually stands a strong chance of making it to the Presidential Debates. A conservative that isn't a clown is appealing to many typical Republican voters. Green candidate Jill Stein is polling lower, and has a lower national presence, but like Johnson is actually on enough ballots to have the opportunity to win. She isn't on every ballot, last I heard, unlike the other three, so her odds are even thinner. Then again, the DNC corruption is bound to send folks her way. And should Stein and Johnson play spoiler and create a contested election, Johnson probably has a better chance of winning in Congress than anyone else, but especially poison pill Trumpy.Well, it's officially over now.
Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump. I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B. I wonder what happens now.
The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?
Except for those parts laughing.
Yup.
(Unrelated side note, check your PMs. I've been looking for you.)
Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.
I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Either way, both parties are undergoing shit storms at the moment. There hasn't been this good of a time to try and push a third party candidate that I can think of since Teddy Roosevelt felt like making Taft his bitch again. Sure, last time one succeeded we fought a war over it, but that doesn't mean we have to keep up this Lesser of Two Evils farce.
Besides, its not like most of our votes actually directly matter. The Electoral College system ensures most of us cast our vote when the national census comes through. :P So the best use may be giving another option the spotlight for a little while.
Because right now is the most pragmatic time to choose idealogical principles? Both stinking parties are mid meltdown. Libertarian Gary Johnson is climbing in the polls, and actually stands a strong chance of making it to the Presidential Debates. A conservative that isn't a clown is appealing to many typical Republican voters. Green candidate Jill Stein is polling lower, and has a lower national presence, but like Johnson is actually on enough ballots to have the opportunity to win. She isn't on every ballot, last I heard, unlike the other three, so her odds are even thinner. Then again, the DNC corruption is bound to send folks her way. And should Stein and Johnson play spoiler and create a contested election, Johnson probably has a better chance of winning in Congress than anyone else, but especially poison pill Trumpy.Well, it's officially over now.
Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump. I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B. I wonder what happens now.
The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?
Except for those parts laughing.
Yup.
(Unrelated side note, check your PMs. I've been looking for you.)
Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.
I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Either way, both parties are undergoing shit storms at the moment. There hasn't been this good of a time to try and push a third party candidate that I can think of since Teddy Roosevelt felt like making Taft his bitch again. Sure, last time one succeeded we fought a war over it, but that doesn't mean we have to keep up this Lesser of Two Evils farce.
Besides, its not like most of our votes actually directly matter. The Electoral College system ensures most of us cast our vote when the national census comes through. :P So the best use may be giving another option the spotlight for a little while.
I just wanted to say, underrated post.
Some have been saying "wait it out, vote for the lesser evil, try again next time", but the problem is that they've been saying that for 30 years. And frankly I've never seen anything close to a meltdown like this year, not even the insurgent rise and fall of Ron Paul last time. If there is ever a time, that time is now.
I just wonder about the people who say that: if now is not the time to push for an option C, when?
Honest question do we really need a president?
Can we not seize the means of production for ourselves?
Because right now is the most pragmatic time to choose idealogical principles? Both stinking parties are mid meltdown. Libertarian Gary Johnson is climbing in the polls, and actually stands a strong chance of making it to the Presidential Debates. A conservative that isn't a clown is appealing to many typical Republican voters. Green candidate Jill Stein is polling lower, and has a lower national presence, but like Johnson is actually on enough ballots to have the opportunity to win. She isn't on every ballot, last I heard, unlike the other three, so her odds are even thinner. Then again, the DNC corruption is bound to send folks her way. And should Stein and Johnson play spoiler and create a contested election, Johnson probably has a better chance of winning in Congress than anyone else, but especially poison pill Trumpy.Well, it's officially over now.
Unfortunately I am of the opinion that this effectively locks us into President Trump. I will be voting Stien as I have always held as my plan B. I wonder what happens now.
The rest of the world gets pissed at the USA?
Except for those parts laughing.
Yup.
(Unrelated side note, check your PMs. I've been looking for you.)
Or people could not cut off their nose to spite their face. That would be nice.
I wish I could read minds to find out why voters are deciding now is the time to choose idealogical principles over pragmatism... :rolleyes
Either way, both parties are undergoing shit storms at the moment. There hasn't been this good of a time to try and push a third party candidate that I can think of since Teddy Roosevelt felt like making Taft his bitch again. Sure, last time one succeeded we fought a war over it, but that doesn't mean we have to keep up this Lesser of Two Evils farce.
Besides, its not like most of our votes actually directly matter. The Electoral College system ensures most of us cast our vote when the national census comes through. :P So the best use may be giving another option the spotlight for a little while.
I just wanted to say, underrated post.
Some have been saying "wait it out, vote for the lesser evil, try again next time", but the problem is that they've been saying that for 30 years. And frankly I've never seen anything close to a meltdown like this year, not even the insurgent rise and fall of Ron Paul last time. If there is ever a time, that time is now.
I just wonder about the people who say that: if now is not the time to push for an option C, when?
Well, not handing the office that controls all environmental regulation to people that believe that shouldn't exist would be a nice thing.
But no, fixate on the presidency like that's a useful time to push for a third option.
I think it's been strongly shown that you can't fix a deficit by cutting spending, because that just slows the economy down because there's less money moving around...
Rudy Giuliani of all people forgot about 9/11. Or....maybe he knows something....he did specify "radical Islamic attack"....so maybe....did he just admit Bush did 7/11?
Many people are saying it - many smart people. The best people. Why won't Bush release the transcripts? It's gotta be big, folks.
You could literally be Moussolini? You know, instead of just aspiring to be like him?Trump's more of a Berlusconi.
How could you be a worst candidate than Trump? He's been literally advocating for the bombing of civilian targets and hunting down of non-white people.You could be Jeb. Forgotten about before the first ballot was cast. But that's a different kind of worse candidate.
He's more of a Dumbasso.You could literally be Moussolini? You know, instead of just aspiring to be like him?Trump's more of a Berlusconi.
That is true, but economically,essentially, however bad Europe is because of the exit, the UKis worse.
And we're not going to bail them out again.
Fortunately, I have stocked up on canned food and ammunition.
Congress just passed a law that allows the families to 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.
I can't wait till everybody else uses this as an example to start suing the US for all of our fucked up shit.
Congress just passed a law that allows the families to 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.
I can't wait till everybody else uses this as an example to start suing the US for all of our fucked up shit.
I'm sure many Iraqis are jumping with joy over this.
However it's believed that Obama plans to veto the bill exactly for this precedent.
Only one person voted against the bill too gosh
Edit: I just read that Republicans are suddenly regrettingbthe bill AND are blaming Obama for their ignoring of his veto because he "didn't make the consequences of this bill clear enough".
Mitch McConnell quote there ????
Only one person voted against the bill too goshMcConnell is easily the stupidest person in the house and an exemplar of the geographic region he represents... which is why I fled from there as if on fire as soon as I was old enough to. :P
Edit: I just read that Republicans are suddenly regrettingbthe bill AND are blaming Obama for their ignoring of his veto because he "didn't make the consequences of this bill clear enough".
Mitch McConnell quote there ????
So the hurricane is a real tragedy ... but ...
Hurricane hits Mar-A-Lago.
Hey who's side do you think God is on?
So the hurricane is a real tragedy ... but ...
Hurricane hits Mar-A-Lago.
Hey who's side do you think God is on?
Also, there are hurricane truthers. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying it's not bad and the liberals are hyping it up as a false flag to make global warming seem legitimate.
Chlorine for the gene pool.
if nate silvers people have it right (they are pretty good), the race isnt nearly as close as it seems. seems clinton could loose california and still have the electoral college.
of course, thats just statistics ymmv
http://usuncut.com/politics/right-wing-pastor-better-trump-grab-psy-one/ In other news, local asshole Dave Daubenmire is at it again...
I think the most amusing thing was actually Trump saying "I have more respect for women than anybody else".
Deuterte, already racking up some impressive numbers in the "killing his own citizens" department, has now said 'screw off US, we're BFFs with China now.'
Wonderful.
... but I am also tired of people pre-blaming me for President Trump.
Instant run-off elections would be the best. (Well almost the best. Banishing political parties to the cornfield would be the best.)
If we had that, we'd probably be looking at Trump vs. Sanders right now. Weep.
One question, at this point have you conceded the Presidential position is just a puppet show and no matter who is in office things won't change or are you convinced the election matters but it's so rigged you will never be able to vote for the people that could actually do a good job in office?
but then i read how Silver has a trump problem, he has been fucking up the trump predictions since last year.
but then i read how Silver has a trump problem, he has been fucking up the trump predictions since last year.
Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.
I recommend Adam Todd Brown for someone who predicted the Trump thing from the start ;)
but then i read how Silver has a trump problem, he has been fucking up the trump predictions since last year.
Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/nate-silvers-very-very-wrong-predictions-about-donald-t-1788583912
but then i read how Silver has a trump problem, he has been fucking up the trump predictions since last year.
Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/nate-silvers-very-very-wrong-predictions-about-donald-t-1788583912
The biggest flaw with that is the admitted apology for getting pundit-y about Trump after he got the nomination based on absurdity and initial numbers. Plus its last cited article being from December... honestly, that's a pretty weak argument he's putting up. "He got it wrong about the primaries on this side, therefore his conclusions have no basis". It would seem less dismissive if 538 had not, in fact, been predicting a Trump win by one measure in July.
Also, the worst way to dismiss something that gives a probability of victory is "it got it wrong". Or looking at the editorials.
Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/nate-silvers-very-very-wrong-predictions-about-donald-t-1788583912
The biggest flaw with that is the admitted apology for getting pundit-y about Trump after he got the nomination based on absurdity and initial numbers. Plus its last cited article being from December... honestly, that's a pretty weak argument he's putting up. "He got it wrong about the primaries on this side, therefore his conclusions have no basis". It would seem less dismissive if 538 had not, in fact, been predicting a Trump win by one measure in July.
Also, the worst way to dismiss something that gives a probability of victory is "it got it wrong". Or looking at the editorials.
you're such a sweet talker :flutter
Mind giving links? I'm no good at sourcing things.
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/nate-silvers-very-very-wrong-predictions-about-donald-t-1788583912
The biggest flaw with that is the admitted apology for getting pundit-y about Trump after he got the nomination based on absurdity and initial numbers. Plus its last cited article being from December... honestly, that's a pretty weak argument he's putting up. "He got it wrong about the primaries on this side, therefore his conclusions have no basis". It would seem less dismissive if 538 had not, in fact, been predicting a Trump win by one measure in July.
Also, the worst way to dismiss something that gives a probability of victory is "it got it wrong". Or looking at the editorials.
you're such a sweet talker :flutter
It's not my fault those are weak arguments. Only citing things from before the primaries finished is just lazy. xD
altP ... Libertarian an option for you?
Already voted by mail.
Too many neo-nazi loons out this year to risk polls.
Looks like the election killed my gaming group too. :bigeyes
Re:538 - Most of the defense boils down to the fact that Trump is an outlier, and predictive models, by their nature, never do well with those. But people want to make fun of them because their numbers didn't predict this, which is just dumb and petty since (basically) no one did.
I'm disappointed in America. But I'm not surprised. Just profoundly disappointed.
Like, I don't even recall hearing any actual policies from trump during his campaign. It was all "we're gonna get rid of this", "trust me, I know what I'm doing", "I know more than anyone else about this".
That was literally the gist of anything remotely policy related I ever heard him say.
Like, I don't even recall hearing any actual policies from trump during his campaign. It was all "we're gonna get rid of this", "trust me, I know what I'm doing", "I know more than anyone else about this".
That was literally the gist of anything remotely policy related I ever heard him say.
It has been online (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/) this whole (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf) time.
Like, I don't even recall hearing any actual policies from trump during his campaign. It was all "we're gonna get rid of this", "trust me, I know what I'm doing", "I know more than anyone else about this".
That was literally the gist of anything remotely policy related I ever heard him say.
It has been online (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/) this whole (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf) time.
The president doesn't have the authority to do a lot of those and congress isn't going to vote restrictions for themselves that's for damn sure.
Also he's going to cut taxes and the deficit but somehow pay for all of that without stating how.
I voted Trump because I would have voted any candidate that I thought had a chance of winning who would even try to reduce the size and reach of government, especially the Federal gubment, into my life. I would have voted for Kruse, Rubio, or Carson. I'd have thrown up if Kasich had been the (R) candidate and gotten ready for his opponent to win.
.
Like, I don't even recall hearing any actual policies from trump during his campaign. It was all "we're gonna get rid of this", "trust me, I know what I'm doing", "I know more than anyone else about this".
That was literally the gist of anything remotely policy related I ever heard him say.
It has been online (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/) this whole (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf) time.
The president doesn't have the authority to do a lot of those and congress isn't going to vote restrictions for themselves that's for damn sure.
Also he's going to cut taxes and the deficit but somehow pay for all of that without stating how.
I was not saying he can pull all of that off or that they are all good ideas, I was just stating that his policies were publicly out there.
Also not having the authority to do something does not prevent one from pushing and supporting the idea.
Not to nitpick but that is from September.....Trump's horrid transition team is on deck. And now here we go. It has begun. Here's a newer article if that helps.
(click to show/hide)
Then you backed the wrong horse.
Ooh, ooh - Chemus, I want to ask you questions. I don't know enough conservative republicans (at least, enough who have the ability to communicate in ways other than memes and vague generalities) to be able to do so in a real way. I hope you don't mind.
So first, what are your views on climate change/environmental stuff and LGBTQ+ rights?
EDIT: also, what's your stance on abortion in the cases of rape, or incest, or severe medical problems for the mother?
I want to be clear that none of these are leading or loaded questions. I actually want to know the answers - I feel like I live in a liberal bubble where everyone mostly agrees with me.
Regarding climate change, I'm unconvinced that human endeavors are affecting it, let alone effecting it. I'm unconvinced as to the scale of the issue, and the fact that any time anyone dissents they're ridiculed rather than refuted does not convince me that it's being correctly characterized.
As for making non-het, or any other group, 'protected' against hate speech or hate crimes, or special employment rules I say fuck off. Equal protection under the law. No group should have special rules. Period.
Regarding abortion, my view is that I don't want my tax money paying for, or subsidizing...
... https://xkcd.com/1732/ (https://xkcd.com/1732/) ...
Regarding climate change, I'm unconvinced that human endeavors are affecting it, let alone effecting it. I'm unconvinced as to the scale of the issue, and the fact that any time anyone dissents they're ridiculed rather than refuted does not convince me that it's being correctly characterized.
In fact, grouping people is inherently divisive. Case in point: BLM. The fact that they're black doesn't matter. Their life does indeed matter, but not their skin. Statistics do not support the narrative that the BLM group has presented, but MSM tends to keep pushing their message.
Do you see no purpose in someone who's infertile getting married? Why is marriage intertwined with having children in your opinon?
Demonstrably, concentrations of CO2 are rising, and have been rising drastically, since the industrial revolution. There isn't some other plausible source to attribute the CO2 to, especially as burning oil produces water and Carbon Monoxide or Dioxide along with soot from incomplete combustion. There was also a [temperature?] dip around the time of Genghis Khan because forests got to grow back after killing so many people. From its physical properties and evidentially through looking at the surface of Venus, CO2 has an insulating effect. With more CO2 being put into the air and less removed via photosynthesis (deforestation for agriculture), concentrations go up.
The only way that humans can't be affecting temperature increases in some way is for comparatively simple physics knowledge to be wrong or for almost all measurements of atmospheric CO2 and historical levels to be incorrect. This includes direct measurements for the past 60 years, which would have been noticed by now.
So you want me paying for your government assistance, but you don't want to pay for my government assistance? I mean, everyone, including, and especially, those in poorer, rural areas are getting government assistance. Farmers want crop subsidies. How are those paid for? Taxes on everyone. Everyone eats.Police, Safety and Defense suffer from greater risk of corruption if not paid for universally; they must cover everyone equally without regard for whether you paid your bill. The rest, including subsidy is just adding money into the economic system without any responsibility or accounting, and merely serves to increase prices.
...Who pays for the hospital visit if the person visiting can't? Right now, the government. Would you rather have:The person chooses 'B' or 'D'. The person responsible for my health, and healthcare, is me. If you injure me, you get to pay, but otherwise, I'm responsible. 'A' just means that everyone who pays the hospital also pays for those who don't pay (the exact same as "taxing corporations"; their customers get to pay taxes twice). One reason Healthcare prices have inflated is because there's unaccountable money (the person with the benefits is not ultimately responsible) injected into the system (Same with tuition prices; grants, scholarships, et. al. merely serve to inflate prices for all). Right now, if a person goes to ER when it's not life threatening and can't pay, everyone else picks up the tab anyway.
A) the government forces the hospital to pay for the person's care
B) the person to not receive care
C) the government to pay for that person's care
D) the person to be forced to take a loan or something to pay for the care
E) other (please specify)
As it is now (and has been for decades and decades) the hospital is required to see the person and prevent them from dying. This prevents places from only accepting the wealthy, and overall improves QOF for everyone in the nation (everyone being the statistical majority).I don't know the QOF acronym. But I'm a capitalist; I ain't rich at all, but 'pay your own way' is what I do for healthcare. If you can't, do your best to find a group or individual willing to help, or take a loan. Life. Ain't. Fair. We can't make it so with laws.
The reason there aren't as many private businesses that provide the assistance is because A) they can't do it all and B) they were exploiting the poor and thus regulations had to be put into place as consumer protection. There's still charities. There's still things like churches and mosques to help out. But for every one of those you have a...what's that place called in Texas? And the one in Georgia? You know, with Kreflo Dollar and Pastor what's his name. The people who exploit people's harm to make money.I'm a heartless bastard who wants there to be a reason for anyone capable of working to have real incentive to work. Those actually unable to work are either supported by their families, or can seek assistance from a group willing to help them. Making 'poor folks' seek assistance rather than making it 'automatic' (I know that there's a buncha paperwork, but there is with a job too) gives incentive for those who just don't wanna work to do it anyway. And 50% is a bit pessimistic there, dman. You don't hear about anyone doing their job right in the news merely because it doesn't sell.
You don't get to tell me what I can't say. You can disagree with me. You can oppose my position. You can decry that my words make me sexist/racist/homophobic. You. Don't. Get. To. Shut. Me. Up.QuoteAs for making non-het, or any other group, 'protected' against hate speech or hate crimes, or special employment rules I say fuck off. Equal protection under the law. No group should have special rules. Period.
And....that's the case now? Ish. I mean, right now local, state, and federal servants are trying to make it illegal to be gay... Mike Pence is one of them. Trump wanted to make it illegal to be Muslim. Not sure where he stands on that fully. Is that equal protection? How on earth is that equal protection? You said it was of no concern to you, great, sure, whatever. So why are you not shouting about these people trying to make it illegal? They are trying to make it unequal. Rulings like the one that legalized same-sex marriage made it equal protection under the law. They didn't give anyone special rights. Personally, I think everyone should be protected from hate speech. And that's where liberals want to put things.
Incorrect. My tax dollars subsidize abortion by covering those other things.QuoteRegarding abortion, my view is that I don't want my tax money paying for, or subsidizing...
Good news then! It never has. Planned Parenthood's government money goes towards things like cancer screenings, checkups, etc, and law prohibits it from going towards abortion.
Here's a good counter argument to the climate change thing. (https://xkcd.com/1732/) A chart of the history of the global average temperature over human history and a little beyond. You should see why scientists are pretty alarmed by the rate that it's increased.Yup. Seen that. But what about temps outside human history? Climate. Changes. We aren't gonna turn into Venus.
These folks say you're incorrect. 1 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/) 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech) 3 (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-colleges-hate-speech-1st-amendment-20151030-story.html) 4 (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/07/chris-cuomo/cnns-chris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/) (top 4, no skipping, on my "who is protected against hate speech?" search)
Okay, PC speech suppression. This is not a thing. PC speech is not calling someone a racial slur. PC speech is not being racist/sexist/whateverist. You can and absolutely should be allowed to voice your own concern, for you and your family(ies). Anyone who is suppressing this, is not a PC police. They are not PC, themselves. However. Someone telling you to stop joking about rape because they have PTSD from being raped? That's not PC police. You are the one who is hurting someone with your words. This is specifically not protected speech under the (original) First Amendment. You are not allowed to use speech to harm someone, just as you are not allowed to use your fists. The ol' 'shout fire in a crowded theater' routine.
BLM is trying to get police to stop shooting unarmed black men...
Yup. Seen that. But what about temps outside human history? Climate. Changes. We aren't gonna turn into Venus.
The person chooses 'B' or 'D'. The person responsible for my health, and healthcare, is me. If you injure me, you get to pay, but otherwise, I'm responsible. 'A' just means that everyone who pays the hospital also pays for those who don't pay (the exact same as "taxing corporations"; their customers get to pay taxes twice). One reason Healthcare prices have inflated is because there's unaccountable money (the person with the benefits is not ultimately responsible) injected into the system (Same with tuition prices; grants, scholarships, et. al. merely serve to inflate prices for all). Right now, if a person goes to ER when it's not life threatening and can't pay, everyone else picks up the tab anyway.
You don't get to tell me what I can't say. You can disagree with me. You can oppose my position. You can decry that my words make me sexist/racist/homophobic. You. Don't. Get. To. Shut. Me. Up.
http://www.science20.com/frank_schnell/blog/the_greenhouse_effect_fallacy-165119 Sums up one scientific rebuttal.
The so-called “Greenhouse effect” is one of the most persistent fallacies in popular science. It is a flawed speculation left over from the late 19th century, when it was first entertained by such scientific luminaries as Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, and Svante Arrhenius.
In fact, however, the so-called “greenhouse gases” do not “trap” infrared energy radiated from the surface of the Earth, as proposed; they merely slow its inevitable return to outer space.
The result is a moderation of both daytime and nighttime temperatures, not a multiplying of the warming effect of the sun. In fact, the oft promoted specter of “tipping points” and “runaway greenhouse effects” represent nothing less than violations of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Ironically, the conventionally described “greenhouse effect” (to the extent that it exists at all), would actually have a net cooling effect during the day, rather than a net warming effect, as invariably claimed. While excitedly promoting the absorption of ground-radiated IR by greenhouse gases, global warming enthusiasts ignore altogether the interception of incoming solar IR radiation by the same gases, which has been calculated to be several times greater than the absorption of ground-radiated IR.
Incorrect. My tax dollars subsidize abortion by covering those other things.
The world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.The total numbers are rising but the rate is actually going down.
Regarding abortions for rape etc., I said that (lack of) consent informs my feelings, but that if the kid is killed, it becomes a victim too, in my opinion. I never said that a woman can't choose, but that there are other choices, and I don't want to pay for abortions, as I feel that they're tantamount to infanticide.
Regarding Climate change (if that's still the name), I don't trust the reporting on it, as it's been 3-4 things in the 30 years I've been hearing about it.
The world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.
And yes I mean that I care more about 20,000 kids dying to violence than about 700 kids dying to (possibly) violent cops. That's why I think that BLM is a power grab.That may be, but it is very important that the system be fair, responsible, and accountable.
OK Chemus, thanks for answering. I don't agree with you even a little bit, but I appreciate you answering.
QuoteAs it is now (and has been for decades and decades) the hospital is required to see the person and prevent them from dying. This prevents places from only accepting the wealthy, and overall improves QOF for everyone in the nation (everyone being the statistical majority).I don't know the QOF acronym. But I'm a capitalist; I ain't rich at all, but 'pay your own way' is what I do for healthcare. If you can't, do your best to find a group or individual willing to help, or take a loan. Life. Ain't. Fair. We can't make it so with laws.
Regarding the celebration of non-heterosexual relationships, I say why? I don't care if they want to marry, but just like old people (re)marrying, I see no purpose in it...and
Many, not all, of the benefits, rights, and responsibilities are, or were originally, to support children, via their mothers, if the fathers died or if the family split...(emphasis added)
Nanshork, I never said 'I don't want them to marry', I said:QuoteRegarding the celebration of non-heterosexual relationships, I say why? I don't care if they want to marry, but just like old people (re)marrying, I see no purpose in it...andQuoteMany, not all, of the benefits, rights, and responsibilities are, or were originally, to support children, via their mothers, if the fathers died or if the family split...(emphasis added)
Solo, if BLM wanted to hold police accountable, and if MSM did, they'd not focus on the fact that ~150 black men died by being shot by police this year, but that 450+ people died that way. MSM only releases info locally when someone not black gets shot, and in the AP stories I've read, if a person who is black commits a crime with a gun, no race is given or it's buried in the story, but the reverse happens with whites. I think that they want something else.
But it is about a lot more than that legally, in the US, and this not a matter of opinion. Being married opens up a lot of very beneficial doors which include being able to be on your spouse's insurance plan, hospital visitation rights, joint tax returns, end-of-life decision making, inheritance taxes, etc. Not allowing homosexuals to marry is denying them equal protection and rights under the law.Do you see no purpose in someone who's infertile getting married? Why is marriage intertwined with having children in your opinon?
To me marriage is to create a family. That includes progeny. Many, not all, of the benefits, rights, and responsibilities are, or were originally, to support children, via their mothers, if the fathers died or if the family split. Alimony in childless couples is definitely not compatible with sexual equality; each member of the former family is an adult and supposedly takes care of their self.
Well, Trump erased the muslim ban and leaving the Paric Climate treaty from his website, and he publicly walked back complete repeal of Obamacare insisting there are parts that need to be kept.
My conservative friends are now howling for his blood on FB. He literally went from being the second coming of jesus to the devil within an hour.
...as a late aside, at a detail from 2 pages back ...
some the most stringent criticism of Trump came from explicitly
Christian backgrounds...
Nanshork, Pxy, I'm not arguing against gay marriage. I don't care about gay marriage either way, being neither gay, pro-gay nor anti-gay. Yes marriage has crap tied to it that have to do with tying people together as a family. My view of marriage is as a commitment whose purpose is to make solid families for kids to be socialized and educated in. So the point of non-breeding marriage is lost on me. And as I said before, the money stuff is anachronistic if men and women, indeed all adults, are equal; they were there so the woman, and any kids, could retain some income after the bread-winner left/died. Only in the case of kids being included do they have any modern relevance.
Ranieh, that supposes that the reason that more kids who are black are getting shot because the cops are racist or afraid of them. With roughly half of incarcerated violent offenders being people who're black, perhaps the kids are just encountering the police that much more often, thus increasing their risk. What I mean is that presuming a person being stopped by police has a certain percentage chance to get shot, if some people encounter police more frequently, their risk increases. This argument presumes that the majority of incarcerated people are indeed guilty of the crime they're in for.
So the point of non-breeding marriage is lost on me.
Well, Trump erased the muslim ban and leaving the Paric Climate treaty from his website, and he publicly walked back complete repeal of Obamacare insisting there are parts that need to be kept.
My conservative friends are now howling for his blood on FB. He literally went from being the second coming of jesus to the devil within an hour.
Well, Trump erased the muslim ban and leaving the Paric Climate treaty from his website, and he publicly walked back complete repeal of Obamacare insisting there are parts that need to be kept.
Well, Trump erased the muslim ban and leaving the Paric Climate treaty from his website, and he publicly walked back complete repeal of Obamacare insisting there are parts that need to be kept.
So he's walking back his more extreme ideas and becoming more moderate? It's almost like he isn't literally Hitler after all.
As a liberal, my view about government is that it exists solely to be a protector and benefactor of the people.
No dman, especially stripped of the legal ramifications, I don't think government should be involved in marriage. It's not a large issue of mine though.
And Ranieh, government power, indeed anyone's power, is a means to 'any' end. The more power someone has, the more options they have. I don't trust in the benevolence of government (politicians and bureaucrats) to exercise those options, so I want the power reduced. The powers of the government are increasing (ACA, unopposed executive orders, etc) and that scares me.
And you appear to have ignored the paragraph you quoted. Population is not necessarily the only factor; increased interaction, esp. negative interaction, with police == greater risk. And correlation != causation; skin color or conviction rates may not play a role. There's no work for dialogue by BLM; skin color is the only important factor I hear from them.
QuoteThe world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.
Birth rates level off as a country gets more prosperous and free. So we just need to make everyone better off. Which is the point of liberal economics in the first place, according to Adam Smith.
QuoteThe world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.
Birth rates level off as a country gets more prosperous and free. So we just need to make everyone better off. Which is the point of liberal economics in the first place, according to Adam Smith.
Except that if everybody suddenly started making as much trash as the populations in the USA and Europe, things will get pretty ugly pretty fast.
Heck, there's already a big pollution problem in China with all the factories and new cars around. And that's after the one-child policy bringing the birth rate down.
Last but not least there's certainly not enough energy for everybody to have first world living standards right now even if the companies didn't charge anything for it.
QuoteThe world's real problem is population. Unless we can stabilize it, nothing we try to fix will stay fixed. But that's racist talk because right now the most populous areas, and the fast growing ones aren't white. Thus we can't discuss anything that might work, regardless of its palatability.
Birth rates level off as a country gets more prosperous and free. So we just need to make everyone better off. Which is the point of liberal economics in the first place, according to Adam Smith.
Except that if everybody suddenly started making as much trash as the populations in the USA and Europe, things will get pretty ugly pretty fast.
Heck, there's already a big pollution problem in China with all the factories and new cars around. And that's after the one-child policy bringing the birth rate down.
Last but not least there's certainly not enough energy for everybody to have first world living standards right now even if the companies didn't charge anything for it.
Perhaps they heard Bengazi loud and clear; 'what difference does it make now?'
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. I'd like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service sincerely, and also appreciate the fact that you’re here testifying and glad that you’re looking in good health.
Clinton: Thank you.
Johnson: Were you fully aware in real time -- and again, I realize how big your job is and everything is erupting in the Middle East at this time -- were you fully aware of these 20 incidents that were reported in the ARB[State Department Accountability Review Board] in real time?
Clinton: I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of our ongoing discussion about the deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya. We certainly were very conscious of them. I was assured by our security professionals that repairs were under way, additional security upgrades had taken place.
Johnson: Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on -- I believe it was August 12th -- specifically asking for, basically, reinforcements for the security detail that was going to be evacuating or leaving in August? Did you see that personally?
Clinton: No, sir.
Johnson: OK. When you read the ARB, it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to -- or have you ever spoken to -- the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?
Clinton: I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.
Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?
Clinton: Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends --
Johnson: Approximately?
Clinton: Approximately, 25 to 30.
Johnson: Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?
Clinton: There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli -- which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?
Johnson: The point I’m making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I’m going back to then-Ambassador [Susan] Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?
Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS [Diplomatic Security] agent at Walter Reed seriously injured -- getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the --
Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?
Clinton: But, Senator, again—
Johnson: Within hours, if not days?
Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—
Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.
Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --
Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.
Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
Yes, that's what I referred to (even though I misspelled Benghazi)The State Department had been asking Congress for funds for additional security at all sites for ages. The finger gets pointed squarely at Congress if anyone beyond the attackers deserve blame for Benghazi. The place the blame should usually go.
Clinton or her State Dept. rejected a request to replace a security detail that left a month prior to the attack (which she says she was unaware of), even though there had been 20 incidents reported (which she says she was partially aware of). She didn't talk to anyone who was evacuated, citing a desire not to taint the investigation, yet she, her ambassador, and Obama claimed at the time that Intel showed that it was specifically a protest over a video, prior to a completed investigation. There were no such protests, yet they destroyed the filmmaker sans evidence. When pressed repeatedly about not talking to any survivors from the embassy, and the fact that had she done so, she could not have made her claim, she said she didn't want to bother them, that the FBI was investigating, and what does the attackers motive matter now?
She claims that she was unaware; either she was not doing her job, or she was lying.
Were you really unaware of this exchange before now, Solo?
This, however, is a poll. How did they vote? Additionally, unless you're comparing Enlisted to Officers, the spread in the poll of officers was listed as T: 26.2%, J: 31.3%, C: 31.7%, Clinton edging out Johnson. Enlisted strongly favored Trump, and disfavored Clinton. Perhaps they heard Bengazi loud and clear; 'what difference does it make now?'
talk about a no win situation.Which just goes to show you how clueless Trump is. He's whined on Twitter about it, when he should be funding it. Which would be a complete win for him. Even if he lost the recount, then he'd still be the hero that put an honest election before winning. Which is probably a bigger thing than being #45. And would give a lifetime of bragging without all the work of being President Cat Herder. And if he wins the recount, he gets both prizes. But, too late! Whiny baby has tweeted.
no recount / trump wins recount : trump wins... same/ same / armagedon
recount / clinton wins : she says nah and lets trump continue vis a vi al gore in 2000 : trump wins / see above
recount / clinton wins : she say 'hells yeah its mine cheeto boy' : clinton wins / armagedon
the crying would never end if clinton got a recount win.
Anyone else see Trump make Ben Carson his Head of Urban Development? As if believing that guy knows anything about anything? :/
This anti-corruption thing is going so well.
This anti-corruption thing is going so well.
*cackles manicly about first-world problems*
Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.
This anti-corruption thing is going so well.
*cackles manicly about first-world problems*
Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.
It's humorous regardless of how minor the corruption is. And going for populism and anti-corruption then... this.
This anti-corruption thing is going so well.
*cackles manicly about first-world problems*
Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.
It's humorous regardless of how minor the corruption is. And going for populism and anti-corruption then... this.
Oh, I know. I was just thinking about how... relatively easy you guys have got it there. :P
They're giving a man who gets pissy about Saturday Night Live and gets his news off Twitter the nuclear launch codes. Everyone should be afraid.
This anti-corruption thing is going so well.
*cackles manicly about first-world problems*
Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.
It's humorous regardless of how minor the corruption is. And going for populism and anti-corruption then... this.
Oh, I know. I was just thinking about how... relatively easy you guys have got it there. :P
They're giving a man who gets pissy about Saturday Night Live and gets his news off Twitter the nuclear launch codes. Everyone should be afraid.
This anti-corruption thing is going so well.
*cackles manicly about first-world problems*
Ah, sorry. That was entirely too rude of me.
It's humorous regardless of how minor the corruption is. And going for populism and anti-corruption then... this.
Oh, I know. I was just thinking about how... relatively easy you guys have got it there. :P
Actually our laws are designed so that he alone makes the decision on nukes. If he wants to do it the only way anyone has of stopping him is shooting him in the head.
I thought The Donald could defeat nukes just by his awesomeness alone.
What? Was something ... :whistle ... going on today?
Ironically, my i.p. address today is going through Wash DC 20007 (which I was totally unaware of, 'til 2 minutes ago).
Goldman Sachs is near totally in charge of the economy now ; and "rumor" has it they don't follow anyone else's ideology. Roll a d20 for result please.
What? Was something ... :whistle ... going on today?
Ironically, my i.p. address today is going through Wash DC 20007 (which I was totally unaware of, 'til 2 minutes ago).
Goldman Sachs is near totally in charge of the economy now ; and "rumor" has it they don't follow anyone else's ideology. Roll a d20 for result please.
I think America just rolled a 1, what happens with that?
Facebook: Bringing God back to America!The Pope is on record as having made a statement to that effect.
Comment: Trump is barely religious.
Facebook: But he had more priests at his inauguration than anyone else!
Comment: Yeah and they all prayed for God to guide Trump as a last ditch effort.
Comment: Yeah and they all prayed for God to guide Trump as a last ditch effort.
I predicted 2 years before impeachment. It looks like it might be 2 weeks. Either that or we're in more trouble than I thought.
He is the physical representation of money leaking scandals.I mean AS A PRESIDENT, not as a public figure.
He is the physical representation of money leaking scandals.I mean AS A PRESIDENT, not as a public figure.
Can you name another youth group like the Boy Scouts? That's why.
Umm, I was going to engage with Soro's post, but it seems to have been deleted. Not sure what the ~official protocol is for this.It wasn't, I posted it in the small rant thread (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=16787.msg319906#msg319906) and mostly joked they should have gone full co-ed in my youth instead of waiting so long ;)
One specific thing I don't understand about what the Boy Scouts org are doing, is why is it they are the most vocal + public of youth organizations, about whatever changes they're having trouble with? These exact same set of problems are happening with 1000s of other youth orgs, but there's no massive p.r. and flame wars associated.It's the Boy Scouts, they are dual combination of religion and military that boosts a strong moral code and influential leaders. Conservationists love them because they are everything that made this nation great, outdoors, leadership, Duty to God!, morals, guns, camping, fire, religion, _insert_buzzword_here, etc. And libertarians hate the shit out of them because they are everything that's wrong with the nation for exactly the same reasons.
Along those lines, the shirt I'm wearing is a girl scout's Sewing Merit badge, but for boys.And that's fine.
NY Times is reporting executive order adding Bannon to Security Council was at least partially written by Bannon, Trump wasn't briefed on it, and didn't find out it added Bannon to Council till after he signed it.
NY Times is reporting executive order adding Bannon to Security Council was at least partially written by Bannon, Trump wasn't briefed on it, and didn't find out it added Bannon to Council till after he signed it.
Can you name another youth group like the Boy Scouts? That's why.
YMCA
I wouldn't put it past him <trump> to have seriously put more time into picking curtains than reading what he's signing though.
House Republicans have voted to eliminate the only federal agency that ensures the voting machines arent hacked.sounds about par for the fucking course...
House Republicans have voted to eliminate the only federal agency that ensures the voting machines arent hacked.Good, that clears the way to put the Nevada Gaming Commission in charge of them. They care more about security in slot machines than the government has ever cared about voting machines. Having actual fucking standards and all that. That's how piss poor we treat voting, its less secure than slot machines and that's still too secure for the swamp weasels.
The whole wording on that article has me confused since I haven't kept up with the debate. Did they vote against or for net neutrality?
Which Trump will likely not endorse, making net neutrality not a thing?
Which Trump will likely not endorse, making net neutrality not a thing?If its associated with Obama in any way, he's agin' it. Which is why he puts catsup on his well done steaks.
Wait, you actually get a sticker to say that you voted?