Wait, you're not trying to suggest that we didn't know all that there was to know in 1960, are you? We were using chemical propellant for rockets then, are you really trying to suggest that we did NOT understand all that there was to understand back in 1960? That maybe we were missing something? Because that doesn't sound like you at all.
No, you're wrong about this. Chemical propellant is the pinnacle of space launch technology, the brain is a bunch of neural circuits, we already knew all of this in the 60s, it's time to accept this universal truth and get on with our lives.
That doesn't mean that it's not possible to build a faster plane. There's no reason to build one at this point. You don't need a plane capable of outrunning any missile when you can take pictures with a satellite instead. You don't even need a plane that fast for carrying people when we haven't even attempted to handle the legislation involved with supersonic passenger travel. We didn't lose any capability after the SR-71 was retired, the capability had already been replaced by the time the last ones were laid up.
And, there most definitely are faster aircraft than the SR-71. The SR-71 is the fastest manned air-breathing aircraft. There are faster manned aircraft that are not air-breathing (mach 6.7 X-15), and there are faster air-breathing aircraft that are not manned (mach 9.6 X-43).
The SR-71 met a specific goal at a certain time and performed exceedingly well at that mission, but we haven't replaced it with a better plane because we don't need one. That's like saying that naval scientists or shipbuilders have lost their art because the last battleship was launched in 1944. We just don't need them anymore.
You really bought in hard to that whole "things will never change" mantra, didn't you? Is there some bookie that will let you bet your 401k on progress not occurring, or something? Why are you so insistent on trying to explain to people how their fantasies of progress occurring are based on mythology and magic?
All they need to do is put it on a missile, then they can wipe out the US, the bully of the world!!
Right, all it takes is a 10 kiloton warhead to wipe out the US. A 10 kiloton warhead wouldn't even wipe out Hawaii, which is the only place they can attack with their 1 submarine capable of carrying 1 missile (maybe - assuming the submarine travels its maximum range, and the missile also travels its maximum range - then they might be able to hit Hawaii). Or I guess they do have that big ICBM, so I guess they can use that to attack Alaska. Assuming, of course, that it doesn't get shot down in flight. And assuming that the ICBM actually works in the first place and isn't going to explode on launch. Maybe in another decade or so they'll be able to attack California. And maybe only a few decades after that they'll be able to lob something all the way to the US east coast. And naturally US military technology won't progress at all in that time, so they'll totally be able to attack us without getting their century old technology shot down.
I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War.
I noticed that last night. When reading about this nuclear test I noticed that the article was referring to the South Korean president as Ms. Park, so I looked her up ( I didn't realize they had a female president). She's the first female president, and the daughter of Park Chung-Hee, who led a military coup against the government and is described as a strongman dictator who led the Third Republic of South Korea after the coup, then in 1972 he declared martial law and made the constitution much more authoritarian (which led to the Fourth Republic of South Korea), before being assassinated by the chief of his own security services in 1979. That eventually led to the Fifth Republic of South Korea, which lasted until 1987 and now they are the Sixth Republic of South Korea. His daughter Park Geun-Hye is the sixth president of the sixth republic (11th president overall, and the 18th presidential term). So yeah, it's definitely a bit complicated.
I like how you're talking about the reward in the afterlife for people who die in the name of a religion according to some guy who wrote a book of mythology 1400 years ago or whatever.
"Well, obviously you're not going to get 72 grapes..."
yeah, because that would be ridiculous, haha, right? But 72 virgins or infinite food totally makes sense. Because everyone knows exactly what happens after you die.
I suppose you should get some credit for sticking to your argument, but you probably need to head back to the mothership to get the new talking points. That's probably a better idea than describing a proprietary connector with an adapter as an "open system".
it would be senseless for Apple to make it any other way.
A lot of people thought it was senseless to remove the audio jack, but that didn't stop Apple from trying to sell you a pair of $160 ear phones which they claim will "change the way you listen to music". I'm pretty sure you still listen to music when it goes in your ear holes, but apparently $160 buys you a completely new way to consume sound waves.
Didn't say that. My only point here is that Bernie didn't win the votes of people of color because they voted against him. That's a fact.
I would put it another way. I doubt very much that the vast majority voted against him, I don't think that they knew about him enough to vote against him. They voted for Clinton, not against Sanders. We can contrast that with the general election, where a majority of people who are planning to vote for either Clinton or Trump cited as their reason that they want the other person to lose more than their candidate to win. I don't think that's the case with Sanders vs Clinton. I think Clinton got a lot of votes from people who didn't know the first thing about Sanders. As to why that is, that goes back to the cozy relationship with the DNC and media, the lack of coverage that Sanders got, and the lack of debates and poor timing of the ones that were shown.
Nope, never said that. Just said they didn't steal the election. Which is exactly what Sander's own people are saying too. Because they didn't.
That's good. I'm also not saying that. Should we list other things that neither of us are saying?
The reason this whole argument really annoys me is that the Dem party establishment was way more in the tank for Hilary in 2008 than they were this time.
The major difference is that they learned their lesson, and figured out why she lost so that it wouldn't happen again. They succeeded in not exposing her too much to voters during the primaries, but the general election is another story. She actually had to talk to the press on her plane, that sounded like a fun, super-casual, and totally not awkward exchange. It's been, what, over 270 days since she had a press conference? Yeah, the DNC learned their lesson in 2008 all right. This time around it's so far only been Debbie who had to take one for the team, but it's not over yet.
More democrats voted for him. Why couldn't Bernie have done that?
Round and round we go. I hope that's not a serious question.
And where was all this talk of "corruption" back in 2008?
Is that what the history books say now? No one way back in 2008 was concerned with political corruption? OK, buddy. Yeah, this is definitely a 1-time, election year issue.
Here's another little history lesson.
Is it from the same book that says no one in 2008 was concerned with political corruption? Because it sounds like that book has a bunch of bullshit in it. Yeah, coming off the Cheney-Halliburton presidency, everyone in America thought that political corruption was a non-issue.
They elected black people to Congress and the Senate and everything. What was the response from the losing whites then? Corruption!
You need to explain exactly what your point is, because it sounds like you're saying that because black people voted in the late 1800s and white people responded with claims of corruption, that therefore corruption in the Democrat party does not exist in 2016. Which would be a pretty stupid non-sequitor argument, so I'm sure that's not the one you're trying to make. You better spell it out.
So when "Corruption!" is suddenly only a problem when the mediocre White Guy wins
Oh, I see. You're assuming that the only reason people are complaining about corruption is because of Bernie Sanders. You probably think that Bernie is the only reason I'm concerned with corruption. I could point you to the essays I wrote around the election in 2012 when I refused to vote again for Obama (hey, guess what the reason was), or I could point to any list of people charting out a history of modern political corruption, but if you're already assuming that the root cause for these complaints is Bernie Fucking Sanders, then it doesn't really matter what I say, does it?
I'm not trying to call someone a liar. I'm trying to point out that the AC posting Clinton propaganda cannot prove that "Clinton isn't the one that paid bribes" or "Clinton isn't the one funnelling what money she can back into herself". I personally believe that she's been involved in both of those things for the better part of a few decades, but I'm not talking about what I think, I'm pointing out that the AC cannot prove that either of those statements are correct. If you're still not understanding what I'm saying, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the AC is lying. They might just be stupid.
Here, let me tell you a joke and then we can spend 5 posts discussing why it's funny and what the punchline means.
almost always from eggs or people with white AVI's
I have no idea what that means.
Asserting something doesn't make it true, even if you do it angrily.
Your response to that assertion is to simply claim it isn't true? How about this picture and the story behind it?
I don't want to have an argument where I try to find examples of things Bernie has done his "entire career" and have to try and back up the specific words I wrote until you're satisfied. Instead, I'll just say that Bernie's policies are unaffected by the color of the people that he represents, whereas Clinton is on record calling young black men super-predators and touting her husband's crime bill that saw so many of them locked up. To imagine that Hillary has done, or even more to the point, will do in the future, more for the benefit of black people (and indeed all people) than Sanders is, I believe, incredibly naive. If you look at Clinton's behavior and track record and conclude anything other than that she is in the pocket of Wall Street and other special interests, and is in this election to serve her own interests, then you have well and truly bought into her stock and we both know I'm not going to convince you otherwise. A show of hands, how many people think that Clinton will refuse to sign the TPP? I know, someone ask Terry McAuliffe what he thinks. He knows the game that she's playing.
I admit that I have no idea where Clinton's wide support from black people comes from, and maybe that's the piece of the picture that I'm missing. I honestly don't know what they see in her that is so appealing. I don't understand the logic. I'm willing to admit that.
We had his whole campaign to watch. It was pretty obvious.
The enormous crowds and unprecedented funding effort illustrates to you that he wasn't trying? What else do you think he should have done? Should he have pushed for more debates with Clinton? Because he did that. I'm not sure where you think the effort was lacking. The message that he was promoting had nothing to do with race, why does he need to treat black people with the special gloves if his entire platform is based on more equal treatment of everyone who is currently getting screwed by the system regardless of the color of their skin?
They knew what Bernie was going to say, and knew it would not be taken well at all by TWiB or its audience.
Well don't leave me in suspense, what exactly was he going to say that was so offensive? Hopefully that isn't all just hearsay.
So what does his own high-level former staff (who know the campaign better than you or I) say happened [motherjones.com]?
I don't believe that any election in any state was rigged. That's not what I think happened. I think that the DNC tilted the playing field so that Clinton would cruise to a relatively easy victory. That explains the shift from 26 debates to 6. I don't think the election was stolen or rigged, I think that the DNC simply pushed the narrative from the start (with the help of the media, you can see the close relationship in the emails) that Clinton was going to be the nominee, as if it was a foregone conclusion, it was already decided, Sanders was just some fringe kook to be ignored and ridiculed, and I think the rules that they set up were created with that in mind. If they had a more transparent and unbiased system with 20 or more debates I think that we would be having a different discussion right now. I'd like to see some exit poll numbers concerning people who voted for Clinton who knew next to nothing about Sanders, but we aren't going to see those numbers (not because of some conspiracy, but we're just not). I think Clinton got rammed down people's throats and the Democrat
Sanders lost because he couldn't win the base of the Democratic party. He barely even tried to.
Piss off. Sanders has been fighting for "people of color" as you put it for his entire career. Don't act like he wasn't trying, he was screwed from the start. In 2008 the DNC organized 26 debates for their candidates. They learned their lesson though, because as the debates went on and on people liked Clinton less and less, and Obama beat her. They weren't going to make the same mistake again, they were going to get their anointed candidate through this time. So they scheduled 6 debates, and ended up doing 9 after Sanders kept pushing for more and more. They knew that the more people heard from Hillary, the less they would like her, and they didn't want to expose her to another defeat. They adopted almost all of Bernie's platform (how's that for your base?) but apparently the candidate himself wasn't good enough, right?
Don't try to force the dialog into suggesting that Bernie didn't try. The DNC was lined up behind Clinton since before the campaigning even started, and they rammed her through the entire process. Now they want to bitch and whine about how they need everyone's help to defeat the single most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling, it's pathetic. Only Clinton could possibly lose to the single most disliked candidate, because she's in second place right behind him. The Republicans give the Democrats an election that they can't possibly lose and the Democrats respond by nominating the only person who can possibly lose, just because "it's her time". The Democrats wholeheartedly deserve to lose this election, Clinton absolutely deserves to be defeated by Trump. The best thing she can possibly do is shut up and let Trump defeat himself, and that's exactly what she's doing because no one wants to hear her shit. The debates are going to be an absolute shit show this time around when she has to actually try to defend herself and convince anyone paying attention that she's honest and trustworthy. She's neither, she's corrupt, and she deserves to get hammered by Trump.
I don't buy it. There was a time when no one got paid to post videos on YouTube, and people still posted videos without thinking that they should be paid for it. If you make a living by posting videos on YouTube, great. If YouTube changes their policy so that they don't pay you any more and they take away your livelihood, then if you think that's an actionable offense then sue them. Otherwise, it sounds like there's a great niche market for a video site that will host violent, racist, etc videos that pays the people who upload. Advertisers are obviously going to need to want to advertise on that platform, but if what you're saying is true then it sounds like there's a market. YouTube is not internet video, it is not self publishing, it is none of those things. It is a single video distribution platform among many others, and if they change their policies and alienate a large portion of their user base then a competitor will naturally rise up.
But, if we don't see any competitors rise up to give these people the advertising-funded voice that they desire, then I think it's pretty clear that the market has spoken.
Remember, free speech (and the opposite, censorship) doesn't mean that you have the right to get paid for your videos on YouTube. In fact, the concepts of free speech and censorship are completely separate from YouTube. If you feel that they are censoring you, and you feel oppressed, then go find somewhere else that doesn't make you feel that way.
Or, if they want those sweet, sweet advertising dollars that they crave, maybe they can just stop saying motherfucker and cocksucker so much. They have a choice, of course, they can continue to produce the videos that they want to produce in their pure motherfucking art form, or they can eliminate the profanity and get that sweet, sweet advertising cash to rub all over themselves. No one is going to force them, it's really all about why they make the videos in the first place. Either they want to shout profanity online, or they want advertising cash. And, frankly, I don't care which choice they make, it doesn't affect me either way, but I understand if someone pushing a product doesn't want it associated with some vulgar motherfucking cocksucker.
I forget though, how many countries have landed men on the moon? How many countries have sent a probe to visit every planet? Sorry, I don't remember. There's a list here if you'd like to help me, it would also be interesting to calculate the percentage of successful launches on that list for each country. The US only has around 4% of the global population, so I assume that we also have around 4% of successful space launches. I could be wrong though, since we suck so bad at it and have so little experience.
That is kind of interesting. I spent a couple hours to try to figure out what that object is, I zoomed in quite a bit on it and tried to enhance it as best I could. Here's the result, what do you think?
Slashdot Mirror
An interrogatory sentence should end with a question mark.
Wait, you're not trying to suggest that we didn't know all that there was to know in 1960, are you? We were using chemical propellant for rockets then, are you really trying to suggest that we did NOT understand all that there was to understand back in 1960? That maybe we were missing something? Because that doesn't sound like you at all.
No, you're wrong about this. Chemical propellant is the pinnacle of space launch technology, the brain is a bunch of neural circuits, we already knew all of this in the 60s, it's time to accept this universal truth and get on with our lives.
The SR-71 is still the fastest plane ever built.
That doesn't mean that it's not possible to build a faster plane. There's no reason to build one at this point. You don't need a plane capable of outrunning any missile when you can take pictures with a satellite instead. You don't even need a plane that fast for carrying people when we haven't even attempted to handle the legislation involved with supersonic passenger travel. We didn't lose any capability after the SR-71 was retired, the capability had already been replaced by the time the last ones were laid up.
And, there most definitely are faster aircraft than the SR-71. The SR-71 is the fastest manned air-breathing aircraft. There are faster manned aircraft that are not air-breathing (mach 6.7 X-15), and there are faster air-breathing aircraft that are not manned (mach 9.6 X-43).
The SR-71 met a specific goal at a certain time and performed exceedingly well at that mission, but we haven't replaced it with a better plane because we don't need one. That's like saying that naval scientists or shipbuilders have lost their art because the last battleship was launched in 1944. We just don't need them anymore.
You really bought in hard to that whole "things will never change" mantra, didn't you? Is there some bookie that will let you bet your 401k on progress not occurring, or something? Why are you so insistent on trying to explain to people how their fantasies of progress occurring are based on mythology and magic?
Congratulations on your Nobel, by the way.
concrete structures survived well.
Before, after.
All they need to do is put it on a missile, then they can wipe out the US, the bully of the world!!
Right, all it takes is a 10 kiloton warhead to wipe out the US. A 10 kiloton warhead wouldn't even wipe out Hawaii, which is the only place they can attack with their 1 submarine capable of carrying 1 missile (maybe - assuming the submarine travels its maximum range, and the missile also travels its maximum range - then they might be able to hit Hawaii). Or I guess they do have that big ICBM, so I guess they can use that to attack Alaska. Assuming, of course, that it doesn't get shot down in flight. And assuming that the ICBM actually works in the first place and isn't going to explode on launch. Maybe in another decade or so they'll be able to attack California. And maybe only a few decades after that they'll be able to lob something all the way to the US east coast. And naturally US military technology won't progress at all in that time, so they'll totally be able to attack us without getting their century old technology shot down.
I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War.
I noticed that last night. When reading about this nuclear test I noticed that the article was referring to the South Korean president as Ms. Park, so I looked her up ( I didn't realize they had a female president). She's the first female president, and the daughter of Park Chung-Hee, who led a military coup against the government and is described as a strongman dictator who led the Third Republic of South Korea after the coup, then in 1972 he declared martial law and made the constitution much more authoritarian (which led to the Fourth Republic of South Korea), before being assassinated by the chief of his own security services in 1979. That eventually led to the Fifth Republic of South Korea, which lasted until 1987 and now they are the Sixth Republic of South Korea. His daughter Park Geun-Hye is the sixth president of the sixth republic (11th president overall, and the 18th presidential term). So yeah, it's definitely a bit complicated.
Obviously you will not get 72 grapes
I like how you're talking about the reward in the afterlife for people who die in the name of a religion according to some guy who wrote a book of mythology 1400 years ago or whatever.
"Well, obviously you're not going to get 72 grapes..."
yeah, because that would be ridiculous, haha, right? But 72 virgins or infinite food totally makes sense. Because everyone knows exactly what happens after you die.
It was a direct quote. In case you're lost, this thread is about the quality of reporting on CNN Money.
Knock down the drone, win a burrito.
That's not even the worst of it!
Employees went so far as to create phony PIN numbers
The PIN numbers weren't even real! It's amazing this fraud was detected at all, they looked just like actual PIN numbers!
That's why people joked that Jobs projected a Reality Distortion Field.
That wasn't a joke.
I suppose you should get some credit for sticking to your argument, but you probably need to head back to the mothership to get the new talking points. That's probably a better idea than describing a proprietary connector with an adapter as an "open system".
it would be senseless for Apple to make it any other way.
A lot of people thought it was senseless to remove the audio jack, but that didn't stop Apple from trying to sell you a pair of $160 ear phones which they claim will "change the way you listen to music". I'm pretty sure you still listen to music when it goes in your ear holes, but apparently $160 buys you a completely new way to consume sound waves.
There's a reason this is only happening after he attempted to make a company using his name.
Wow. What nerve. Good thing Intel has an army of lawyers to protect themselves against him.
Didn't say that. My only point here is that Bernie didn't win the votes of people of color because they voted against him. That's a fact.
I would put it another way. I doubt very much that the vast majority voted against him, I don't think that they knew about him enough to vote against him. They voted for Clinton, not against Sanders. We can contrast that with the general election, where a majority of people who are planning to vote for either Clinton or Trump cited as their reason that they want the other person to lose more than their candidate to win. I don't think that's the case with Sanders vs Clinton. I think Clinton got a lot of votes from people who didn't know the first thing about Sanders. As to why that is, that goes back to the cozy relationship with the DNC and media, the lack of coverage that Sanders got, and the lack of debates and poor timing of the ones that were shown.
Nope, never said that. Just said they didn't steal the election. Which is exactly what Sander's own people are saying too. Because they didn't.
That's good. I'm also not saying that. Should we list other things that neither of us are saying?
The reason this whole argument really annoys me is that the Dem party establishment was way more in the tank for Hilary in 2008 than they were this time.
The major difference is that they learned their lesson, and figured out why she lost so that it wouldn't happen again. They succeeded in not exposing her too much to voters during the primaries, but the general election is another story. She actually had to talk to the press on her plane, that sounded like a fun, super-casual, and totally not awkward exchange. It's been, what, over 270 days since she had a press conference? Yeah, the DNC learned their lesson in 2008 all right. This time around it's so far only been Debbie who had to take one for the team, but it's not over yet.
More democrats voted for him. Why couldn't Bernie have done that?
Round and round we go. I hope that's not a serious question.
And where was all this talk of "corruption" back in 2008?
Is that what the history books say now? No one way back in 2008 was concerned with political corruption? OK, buddy. Yeah, this is definitely a 1-time, election year issue.
Here's another little history lesson.
Is it from the same book that says no one in 2008 was concerned with political corruption? Because it sounds like that book has a bunch of bullshit in it. Yeah, coming off the Cheney-Halliburton presidency, everyone in America thought that political corruption was a non-issue.
They elected black people to Congress and the Senate and everything. What was the response from the losing whites then? Corruption!
You need to explain exactly what your point is, because it sounds like you're saying that because black people voted in the late 1800s and white people responded with claims of corruption, that therefore corruption in the Democrat party does not exist in 2016. Which would be a pretty stupid non-sequitor argument, so I'm sure that's not the one you're trying to make. You better spell it out.
So when "Corruption!" is suddenly only a problem when the mediocre White Guy wins
Oh, I see. You're assuming that the only reason people are complaining about corruption is because of Bernie Sanders. You probably think that Bernie is the only reason I'm concerned with corruption. I could point you to the essays I wrote around the election in 2012 when I refused to vote again for Obama (hey, guess what the reason was), or I could point to any list of people charting out a history of modern political corruption, but if you're already assuming that the root cause for these complaints is Bernie Fucking Sanders, then it doesn't really matter what I say, does it?
Well that would be pretty ironic, wouldn't it?
I'm not trying to call someone a liar. I'm trying to point out that the AC posting Clinton propaganda cannot prove that "Clinton isn't the one that paid bribes" or "Clinton isn't the one funnelling what money she can back into herself". I personally believe that she's been involved in both of those things for the better part of a few decades, but I'm not talking about what I think, I'm pointing out that the AC cannot prove that either of those statements are correct. If you're still not understanding what I'm saying, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the AC is lying. They might just be stupid.
Here, let me tell you a joke and then we can spend 5 posts discussing why it's funny and what the punchline means.
It's a moot point, no one can prove that Clinton didn't do those things. It was rhetorical.
almost always from eggs or people with white AVI's
I have no idea what that means.
Asserting something doesn't make it true, even if you do it angrily.
Your response to that assertion is to simply claim it isn't true? How about this picture and the story behind it?
I don't want to have an argument where I try to find examples of things Bernie has done his "entire career" and have to try and back up the specific words I wrote until you're satisfied. Instead, I'll just say that Bernie's policies are unaffected by the color of the people that he represents, whereas Clinton is on record calling young black men super-predators and touting her husband's crime bill that saw so many of them locked up. To imagine that Hillary has done, or even more to the point, will do in the future, more for the benefit of black people (and indeed all people) than Sanders is, I believe, incredibly naive. If you look at Clinton's behavior and track record and conclude anything other than that she is in the pocket of Wall Street and other special interests, and is in this election to serve her own interests, then you have well and truly bought into her stock and we both know I'm not going to convince you otherwise. A show of hands, how many people think that Clinton will refuse to sign the TPP? I know, someone ask Terry McAuliffe what he thinks. He knows the game that she's playing.
I admit that I have no idea where Clinton's wide support from black people comes from, and maybe that's the piece of the picture that I'm missing. I honestly don't know what they see in her that is so appealing. I don't understand the logic. I'm willing to admit that.
We had his whole campaign to watch. It was pretty obvious.
The enormous crowds and unprecedented funding effort illustrates to you that he wasn't trying? What else do you think he should have done? Should he have pushed for more debates with Clinton? Because he did that. I'm not sure where you think the effort was lacking. The message that he was promoting had nothing to do with race, why does he need to treat black people with the special gloves if his entire platform is based on more equal treatment of everyone who is currently getting screwed by the system regardless of the color of their skin?
They knew what Bernie was going to say, and knew it would not be taken well at all by TWiB or its audience.
Well don't leave me in suspense, what exactly was he going to say that was so offensive? Hopefully that isn't all just hearsay.
So what does his own high-level former staff (who know the campaign better than you or I) say happened [motherjones.com]?
I don't believe that any election in any state was rigged. That's not what I think happened. I think that the DNC tilted the playing field so that Clinton would cruise to a relatively easy victory. That explains the shift from 26 debates to 6. I don't think the election was stolen or rigged, I think that the DNC simply pushed the narrative from the start (with the help of the media, you can see the close relationship in the emails) that Clinton was going to be the nominee, as if it was a foregone conclusion, it was already decided, Sanders was just some fringe kook to be ignored and ridiculed, and I think the rules that they set up were created with that in mind. If they had a more transparent and unbiased system with 20 or more debates I think that we would be having a different discussion right now. I'd like to see some exit poll numbers concerning people who voted for Clinton who knew next to nothing about Sanders, but we aren't going to see those numbers (not because of some conspiracy, but we're just not). I think Clinton got rammed down people's throats and the Democrat
Sanders lost because he couldn't win the base of the Democratic party. He barely even tried to.
Piss off. Sanders has been fighting for "people of color" as you put it for his entire career. Don't act like he wasn't trying, he was screwed from the start. In 2008 the DNC organized 26 debates for their candidates. They learned their lesson though, because as the debates went on and on people liked Clinton less and less, and Obama beat her. They weren't going to make the same mistake again, they were going to get their anointed candidate through this time. So they scheduled 6 debates, and ended up doing 9 after Sanders kept pushing for more and more. They knew that the more people heard from Hillary, the less they would like her, and they didn't want to expose her to another defeat. They adopted almost all of Bernie's platform (how's that for your base?) but apparently the candidate himself wasn't good enough, right?
Don't try to force the dialog into suggesting that Bernie didn't try. The DNC was lined up behind Clinton since before the campaigning even started, and they rammed her through the entire process. Now they want to bitch and whine about how they need everyone's help to defeat the single most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling, it's pathetic. Only Clinton could possibly lose to the single most disliked candidate, because she's in second place right behind him. The Republicans give the Democrats an election that they can't possibly lose and the Democrats respond by nominating the only person who can possibly lose, just because "it's her time". The Democrats wholeheartedly deserve to lose this election, Clinton absolutely deserves to be defeated by Trump. The best thing she can possibly do is shut up and let Trump defeat himself, and that's exactly what she's doing because no one wants to hear her shit. The debates are going to be an absolute shit show this time around when she has to actually try to defend herself and convince anyone paying attention that she's honest and trustworthy. She's neither, she's corrupt, and she deserves to get hammered by Trump.
Clinton isn't the one that paid bribes
Citation needed.
Clinton isn't the one funnelling what money she can back into herself
Citation needed.
Trump has focused on improving the Trump brand. Hillary has focused on improving the country.
You really believe that, don't you? Face it, the only thing Clinton is interested in improving is her own position in the country.
I don't buy it. There was a time when no one got paid to post videos on YouTube, and people still posted videos without thinking that they should be paid for it. If you make a living by posting videos on YouTube, great. If YouTube changes their policy so that they don't pay you any more and they take away your livelihood, then if you think that's an actionable offense then sue them. Otherwise, it sounds like there's a great niche market for a video site that will host violent, racist, etc videos that pays the people who upload. Advertisers are obviously going to need to want to advertise on that platform, but if what you're saying is true then it sounds like there's a market. YouTube is not internet video, it is not self publishing, it is none of those things. It is a single video distribution platform among many others, and if they change their policies and alienate a large portion of their user base then a competitor will naturally rise up.
But, if we don't see any competitors rise up to give these people the advertising-funded voice that they desire, then I think it's pretty clear that the market has spoken.
Remember, free speech (and the opposite, censorship) doesn't mean that you have the right to get paid for your videos on YouTube. In fact, the concepts of free speech and censorship are completely separate from YouTube. If you feel that they are censoring you, and you feel oppressed, then go find somewhere else that doesn't make you feel that way.
Or, if they want those sweet, sweet advertising dollars that they crave, maybe they can just stop saying motherfucker and cocksucker so much. They have a choice, of course, they can continue to produce the videos that they want to produce in their pure motherfucking art form, or they can eliminate the profanity and get that sweet, sweet advertising cash to rub all over themselves. No one is going to force them, it's really all about why they make the videos in the first place. Either they want to shout profanity online, or they want advertising cash. And, frankly, I don't care which choice they make, it doesn't affect me either way, but I understand if someone pushing a product doesn't want it associated with some vulgar motherfucking cocksucker.
Yeah, Americans fucking suck at space flight.
I forget though, how many countries have landed men on the moon? How many countries have sent a probe to visit every planet? Sorry, I don't remember. There's a list here if you'd like to help me, it would also be interesting to calculate the percentage of successful launches on that list for each country. The US only has around 4% of the global population, so I assume that we also have around 4% of successful space launches. I could be wrong though, since we suck so bad at it and have so little experience.
If I'm reading those slides right, and I think I am, then I'm looking forward to a laminated Douglas Fir space elevator. I like it.
That is kind of interesting. I spent a couple hours to try to figure out what that object is, I zoomed in quite a bit on it and tried to enhance it as best I could. Here's the result, what do you think?