No I'm not, I responded to a suggestion that someone should use your program with a series of alternatives. Then I predicted that you were going to show up and start trolling. Then you showed up and started trolling. And here we are.
You know all about trolling. Maybe you should go troll the other comments I'm posting and then talk about how you're on topic, not a troll, and not a spammer. Because when you're jacking off some 4 year old kid while yelling that you're not a child molester it totally makes sense.
Wait, what's that? You're claiming victory again? In a game that only you're playing? What are we up to now, have you proven me right 12 times in one thread? I've lost count.
Let's make it one more time, APK. Keep digging that hole, you're not done yet.
The way the system is designed in the US it strongly favours a bi-party state.
At this point it's actually self-perpetuating. The Democratic and Republican parties created the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the billionaire Perot has been the only non-member of the two parties to appear in a prime-time televised debate. The Ds and Rs enforce their agenda by blacklisting any media outlet that shows a debate featuring a candidate from any other party, and the parties have enough contacts in the media which they are in bed with that threats of political boycotts of those media outlets also mean that they can stop media outlets from even reporting on other candidates. The leaked DNC emails show some of that collusion, DWS was on the phone with the head of MSNBC after one of their on-air personalities dared to suggest that DWS should step down as the chair for favoring Clinton. The parties are in bed with the media, and all together they effectively block any other party from gaining any significant following.
You can see it here too, there are plenty of people who are very happy to tell people that voting for another party is a waste of a vote (it's not), or it helps one of the major parties (it only helps the party you vote for), etc. That's the stranglehold that needs to be broken. This election is so far the most likely that I've seen for the general public to ask questions like why aren't Gary Johnson or Jill Stein allowed in the televised debates. The answer will naturally be some arbitrary thing like "they haven't reached X% of support, therefore they aren't included", even though it's obviously circular reasoning (they haven't reached the support because they aren't included). Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states, clearly it's possible for him to reach the 270 electoral votes necessary to win, so why would they shut him out? So that you only hear their own voices. Jill Stein is on the ballot in 23 states but it looks like she probably also has access to 270 electoral votes, or she's really close. Both parties should be part of the debates, and let the 50% or more of Americans who don't identify as either a Democrat or Republican decide who best represents them.
Anyway, a relevant part of the description about what happened with Valerie Plame. I've bolded the part that is pertinent to this discussion.
A week after Wilson's op-ed was published, Novak published a column which mentioned claims from "two senior administration officials" that Plame had been the one to suggest sending her husband. Novak had learned of Plame's employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage. David Corn and others suggested that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson's article.
The ONLY people offended by her "outing" were people who hate Cheney.
The only people who were offended that a journalist was given classified information were people who already hated Cheney, got it. How about the people "offended" at Hillary's handling of classified information? Am I allowed to be "offended" at that even if I didn't already hate Hillary Clinton, or are the only people who care about that issue people who already hated her?
Hate him all you want, just don't do it for this, it is a non-issue.
Giving classified information to a reporter is a non-issue. Well, then giving classified information to another nation would also be a non-issue, right? I mean, if the reporter publishes that classified information then it's not like the distribution of it can be controlled, it's going to get to any country that cares to pay attention, right? So if Hillary left her email server wide open, for example, and another nation went in and got that information, it's really a non-issue because that's essentially the same thing as officials in the presidential administration just giving the classified information to a journalist and encouraging them to publish it. In other words, it's a non-issue.
I also find it simply amazing that this is a huge deal to certain people, while at the same time, those same people are voting Clinton, who has done much much worse.
You really find it amazing that partisan idiots would find one person's disclosure of classified information to be a big deal, but then claim that another person's disclosure of classified information is a non-issue? That seriously amazes you? Have you looked in a mirror?
What about those of us who think that what Clinton and Cheney each did are both a big deal? Are you amazed at us also?
Do you mean like having secret government emails on a home server?
That's not treason.
Like knowingly allowing soldiers and an Ambassador to die in Benghazi and then blaming it all on a Youtube video?
That also is not treason.
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. You strike me as the kind of person who gives a shit about the Constitution, did you skip the part where it defines treason or did you just not understand it? James Madison even spelled out why they defined treason - to stop partisan idiots from accusing each other of treason when it was never committed.
As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Sanders would have gotten a statistically significant increase in votes from that demographic
You're aware that there are many votes that the Democratic party is losing by not nominating Sanders, right? There are actually several terms for those kinds of people. You're also aware that Sanders consistently beat Trump in previous polls, right?
Wow, stop dusting me please! I just almost got all of the dust off me, and look at this, you just toss all of this more on!
Listen, I'm not going to do a feature-by-feature comparison of other programs compared to yours. There are several reasons for that. The primary one is that I have never and will never use your software, so I don't know or care what features it has.
The entire point of bringing up other programs is to show that using software written by a spammer is not a requirement if you want something to manage your hosts file. And that is a statement of fact. Is it feature-for-feature equivalent? Of course not, why write the exact same piece of software? But you don't need to download and run a spammer's software if you want to manage your hosts file. That's my point, argue about your own features or accomplishments all you want, it doesn't change my point.
P.S.=> I don't spam
Yes, APK, you DO spam. You have a fantastic 20 or so year history of online posts where you are spamming. Are you spamming right here, right now? That doesn't matter, you're still a spammer. You still spam, whether you are doing it right now or not. You have spent considerable time earning the right to be called a spammer. Remember all of those Slashdot threads where you would post 40 ads in the same thread? Someone would down-mod one piece of spam, and you come along and post another, and then rejoice about how you're "defeating" the moderation system in order to get your spam seen. Remember that? That's called being a spammer, APK. It doesn't matter that the thread was about ad blocking, if you go in and post 40 ads then you are spamming. People who spam are called spammers. You are a spammer. Slashdot has actually written a series of filters specifically to stop your spam. I'm sure you're going to claim victory and gloat about trying to defeat those also, which is exactly how a spammer would react. It doesn't matter if you are doing it right this second or not, you're a spammer.
I'm sure you've heard the joke. It applies to you. You might not be spamming right now, but you ARE a spammer.
A backpacker is traveling through Ireland when it starts to rain. He decides to wait out the storm in a nearby pub. The only other person at the bar is an older man staring at his drink. After a few moments of silence the man turns to the backpacker and says in a thick Irish accent: "You see this bar? I built this bar with my own bare hands. I cut down every tree and made the lumber myself. I toiled away through the wind and cold, but do they call me McGreggor the bar builder? No." He continued "Do you see that stone wall out there? I built that wall with my own bare hands. I found every stone and placed them just right through the rain and the mud, but do they call me McGreggor the wall builder? No." "Do ya see that pier out there on the lake? I built that pier with my own bare hands, driving each piling deep into ground so that it would last a lifetime. Do they call me McGreggor the pier builder? No." "But ya fuck one goat.."
You trying to argue that you're not a spammer is like trying to argue that you're not a child molester because you only did it those 4 times! I'm not molesting a child right now, so I'm not a child molester! That's your logic.
I would suggest that we need more parties involved, and let people pick from a more broad array of choices. Let the Democrats do whatever they want, if they want to continue on as the slightly more liberal version of Republicans, I don't want to tell them they need to change. I'm not going to vote for them, but I don't think they need to change if that's what they want to be. The same kind of support that Bernie had could be used to energize the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, etc parties and elevate them to the level where the media is forced to cover them, like what happened with Bernie.
Hillary's and Bernie's stances are 99.9% identical
I'm sure you could find a particular point in time where that statement is almost true. Bernie has had the same stances for decades, so depending on what Hillary says she stands for today then that statement might be correct. It doesn't mean she'll stand for any of that stuff tomorrow of course (it all depends on where her money is coming from that day), but hey, a broken clock is right twice a day, right?
Anyway, it sounds like you didn't even read my comment. It's not all about policy, is it? It's about corruption too, isn't it?
Oh wow, is that what was missing? Not enough grassroots support for Bernie? That was the problem?
The ONLY support he had was grassroots. What he was lacking was the party support that they were contractually obligated to provide, the media coverage that those running the DNC didn't want him to have, and debates that would have exposed him to a larger audience and given him more a boost over Clinton.
In 2008 the Democrats had 26 debates. Clinton participated in all of them, Obama only missed one. Clinton, the "party favorite", lead Obama by 10 points at the start, 35% to 25%, and she would lead him by over 20 points eventually. But she lost her lead in February, and didn't get it back again. The party wasn't going to make the same mistake twice. In 2016 the DNC said that there were going to be 6 debates, because they don't want to threaten the impending coronation of Clinton, do they? Eventually a total of 9 were held, with Clinton and Sanders appearing in all of them. In the first debate support for Sanders was at 25% (sound familiar?), but Sanders didn't get above 40% before the debate schedule ended (in April; the last primaries happened in June).
But I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. I'm sure the problem was not that the DNC was actively working against Sanders and for Clinton, but just that Sanders didn't have enough grassroots support. Because if there's one thing this election showed, it's that Sanders had hardly any grassroots support.
But listen, I'm not trying to change the policies of any party. They can all nominate whoever they want, and I'm going to vote for the person that I think best represents me. If they want my vote, then they'll nominate someone who represents me. Clinton doesn't, and Trump doesn't, so neither of them have earned my vote (the Democrats could have made up a lot of ground there with a VP pick like Warren, but I guess it's better to pick some vanilla guy that no one outside of Virginia has heard of). It's really that simple. If polls of likability are any indication, then it's time to unseat both major parties from their positions and get another 1 or 2 parties into the mix. The 2 major parties don't even represent a majority of Americans, we need more choices. There are too many points of view to expect either major party to satisfy most people.
This is not what representative democracy should look like. Any partisan idiot claiming that anyone else MUST!!! vote a certain way in order to stop the other person, and thereby continuing the status quo, is part of the problem. We need 3 or 4 viable parties and candidates in any major election. The way to get there is not to continue down the same broken path playing the same smoke-and-mirrors game. The media isn't going to pay attention to anything that they aren't paid to pay attention to, but if smaller parties get electoral votes in this election cycle then hopefully things will start to change for the next one.
I agree that the DNC is corrupt and badly in need of change. This is not the way to do it.
Oh, ok. How do you suggest we start the revolution, then? Why not just tear down the whole thing and rebuild? Wouldn't that ultimately be cheaper and less painful than trying to kill each termite and replace each board individually?
If you have to step in a dog turd to dodge a bullet, you do it. It's the smart and sensible choice.
Have you seen the movie "Saw"? Exactly the same premise you came up with. Someone points a gun at you, puts a big pile of dog shit there, and then delights in how they make you jump in the dog shit in order to avoid being shot by the gun that they are shooting at you. It's no less sadistic than when the Democrats decide to nominate the second-most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling and then they tell everyone that we all need to vote for her in order to defeat the only person more disliked than she is. How about if I just decide I don't want to play their game? They had a chance to nominate someone that would have caused me to vote (enthusiastically) for the Democratic party, but they decided instead to nominate someone corrupt and now *I* have to make the sacrifice? I've seen this game before, I know how it ends. The only winning move is not to play. Neither major party gets my vote, and they only have themselves to blame. A lot of those delegates aren't all that super, they made their bed and now they get to lie in it.
Sanders said Clinton was not fit to be president. What exactly changed between then and now? Did Clinton all of a sudden become honest? Did she all of a sudden stop being corrupt? If the Democrats really want to defeat Trump then they shouldn't have nominated the only candidate who can lose to him.
And if the emails were in fact edited the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz wouldn't say anything in their own defense, would they?
See what's happening, though? FUD. Fear of Russia, uncertainty and doubt about the correctness of the emails. Don't focus on the content, it's doubtful and uncertain that they are accurate, anyway. Remember, Russia had a hand in this. We've been historic enemies over the past 2/3 of a century or so. Don't read the emails, just vote for Hillary anyway. Allegations of corruption cannot be proven. Russia had a hand. The Russians want Trump. Fear Russia. Fear Trump. Don't read the emails. Vote for Hillary.
The first is fraud against the DNC and Wasserman Schultz, stating that they broke legally binding agreements by strategizing for Clinton. The second is negligent misrepresentation. The third is deceptive conduct by claiming they were remaining neutral when they were not. The fourth is is retribution for monetary donations to Sanders’ campaign. The fifth is that the DNC broke its fiduciary duties during the primaries by not holding a fair process. And the sixth is for negligence, claiming that the DNC did not protect donor information from hackers.
On a side note - the Republicans had the most winnable presidential race in decades, handed to them on a silver platter. So they decided to nominate just about the most unelectable candidate imaginable. Unbelievable.
Yep, the Democrats parry by nominating a divisive, corrupt politician who is the #2 most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. The only person who is more disliked is her opponent. And then they go and find the most vanilla VP pick that no one outside of his state has ever heard of. They are intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
It makes me wonder about all of their justifications. Now the convention is all about "we must defeat Trump!" If defeating Trump was so important to the Democratic party, then why the hell did they nominate the candidate who's untrusted and corrupt and is going to have a serious uphill battle to beat Trump? Why not just nominate the guy who consistently beat Trump in polls? I mean, if their stated goal is to defeat Trump, then why do anything else? Of course that's a trick question; their goal is not to defeat Trump and never has been, their only goal since the primaries started is to elect Hillary. It just so happens that the Republicans managed to nominate the only candidate who is actually more disliked than Hillary, so now the Democrats have a great boogeyman.
There's also the line about, "hey we've got the most progressive platform evar! Like 80% of Bernie's platform is there!" OK, if Bernie's platform is so great then why does Hillary get to be the president and not Bernie? If you really want those platform policies to be implemented and actually worked on, why not elect the guy who has been shouting about them for years? Why shove through a person who only adopted them because it was either adopt or die? Do you really think she's going to stick to that platform once she gets her foot in the door?
Regardless of all of that stuff though, I still can't vote for Hillary, and some people have a hard time understanding why. The major reason I supported Sanders wasn't because of his policy positions, it was because he legitimately wants to see an end to the political corruption caused by very large amounts of money in the political system. In my opinion, Hillary is a perfect example of that kind of corruption, the kind that I want removed from government. Since I see Bernie as the solution to the problem represented by Hillary, if I am not allowed to vote for the solution then I'm not just going to turn around and vote for the problem. I will not vote for the problem. I will cast my vote for a smaller party who will appreciate my vote far more than either Hillary or Trump will (just like I did in the previous election), and vote for someone else who at least is not part of the problem. And if the Democrats want to bitch and moan about that, and try to place any blame on me for them not getting enough votes to beat Trump, I'll be happy to remind them that there was a very easy way to ensure that they would have beaten Trump, but they decided to go with the corrupt one instead.
Yeah, wow, you really showed me, APK. You're truly a mental heavyweight of debate and argument, what with your endless repeating of the same tired bullshit. I didn't learn that tactic, that must only be taught in the master classes.
I dusted you
Pointing out that an application uses SQLite and only has a 32-bit version is "dusted". Learn something new every day I guess.
You're still a spamming troll though, that much isn't going to change. And anyone else is still flat-out stupid for running any executable delivered by a spammer. We all know what the first rule is when dealing with spammers, don't we?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go nurse all of these just awful wounds that you've inflicted on me. I just can't tell you how much I'm suffering over here.
Wait, what's that sound? Is it the sound of the exact same BS being trotted out for a seventh time in a row? APK, the only sound I want to hear from you is soft slurping as you gently caress my balls.
Get a new argument. Haha, sorry, I know you can't. I just like to dream.
He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing
Haha, right on schedule, again I appreciate you continuing to prove me right.
As for me "talking shit" about you, in the first 2 posts in this thread I called you a spammer (which is a demonstrably true fact, not a statement of opinion), and then I predicted exactly what you were going to do over, and over, and over again. That's not talking shit, that's telling it exactly like it is. I give you a rope, and you hang yourself with it. So that's my "shit talking", a couple statements of fact, which were quickly followed by you doing exactly what I said you were going to do.
He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing
I realize that your limited and stunted emotional development also makes it very difficult for you to come up with any new arguments, but every single one of your posts in this thread does nothing except prove my prediction correct. It's time to quit while you're behind, save up your wits for the next ad blocking story on Slashdot and maybe spend the time to come up with a new argument. When your entire argument is you repeating the exact same crap 6 times in one thread, each time proving me right, then it becomes too easy to predict and you really need to re-evaluate your so-called accomplishments.
I'll now leave to allow you to get back to sucking my balls. Thank you.
APK, how many times are you going to keep trying to prove me right? You've already done it buddy, take a rest. Take a little break. You've proven me right, what, four times in this thread alone? Five? How many more times are you going to prove me right?
Well, shit, might as well make it one more time, right? So, go ahead, respond to this post by saying how your work is so much more impressive than mine, even though you know fuck-all about my work, and make sure to add something about the fact that I want to remain anonymous on this site. Also, please list the same so-called "accomplishments" that you always list. I'd like one more victory before this thread ends, so please, just humor me.
Almost as many people voted for Sanders as voted for Trump. Millions of people did vote for him, a relatively unknown outsider. If he had received the same level of party support that Clinton had (which all candidates should have, if they are going to follow their own rules), and if the party had decided to do things like hold more debates like he was asking for, and if the media had covered him as anything but a fringe candidate, then maybe more people would have decided that he represents their interests more than Clinton does. But we'll never know what would have happened, because the DNC was pushing the Clinton narrative the entire time and had their friends in the media doing the same.
Slashdot Mirror
You're off topic
No I'm not, I responded to a suggestion that someone should use your program with a series of alternatives. Then I predicted that you were going to show up and start trolling. Then you showed up and started trolling. And here we are.
You know all about trolling. Maybe you should go troll the other comments I'm posting and then talk about how you're on topic, not a troll, and not a spammer. Because when you're jacking off some 4 year old kid while yelling that you're not a child molester it totally makes sense.
Wait, what's that? You're claiming victory again? In a game that only you're playing? What are we up to now, have you proven me right 12 times in one thread? I've lost count.
Let's make it one more time, APK. Keep digging that hole, you're not done yet.
The way the system is designed in the US it strongly favours a bi-party state.
At this point it's actually self-perpetuating. The Democratic and Republican parties created the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the billionaire Perot has been the only non-member of the two parties to appear in a prime-time televised debate. The Ds and Rs enforce their agenda by blacklisting any media outlet that shows a debate featuring a candidate from any other party, and the parties have enough contacts in the media which they are in bed with that threats of political boycotts of those media outlets also mean that they can stop media outlets from even reporting on other candidates. The leaked DNC emails show some of that collusion, DWS was on the phone with the head of MSNBC after one of their on-air personalities dared to suggest that DWS should step down as the chair for favoring Clinton. The parties are in bed with the media, and all together they effectively block any other party from gaining any significant following.
You can see it here too, there are plenty of people who are very happy to tell people that voting for another party is a waste of a vote (it's not), or it helps one of the major parties (it only helps the party you vote for), etc. That's the stranglehold that needs to be broken. This election is so far the most likely that I've seen for the general public to ask questions like why aren't Gary Johnson or Jill Stein allowed in the televised debates. The answer will naturally be some arbitrary thing like "they haven't reached X% of support, therefore they aren't included", even though it's obviously circular reasoning (they haven't reached the support because they aren't included). Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states, clearly it's possible for him to reach the 270 electoral votes necessary to win, so why would they shut him out? So that you only hear their own voices. Jill Stein is on the ballot in 23 states but it looks like she probably also has access to 270 electoral votes, or she's really close. Both parties should be part of the debates, and let the 50% or more of Americans who don't identify as either a Democrat or Republican decide who best represents them.
it was a well known secret.
That's a weird definition of "secret".
Anyway, a relevant part of the description about what happened with Valerie Plame. I've bolded the part that is pertinent to this discussion.
A week after Wilson's op-ed was published, Novak published a column which mentioned claims from "two senior administration officials" that Plame had been the one to suggest sending her husband. Novak had learned of Plame's employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage. David Corn and others suggested that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson's article.
The ONLY people offended by her "outing" were people who hate Cheney.
The only people who were offended that a journalist was given classified information were people who already hated Cheney, got it. How about the people "offended" at Hillary's handling of classified information? Am I allowed to be "offended" at that even if I didn't already hate Hillary Clinton, or are the only people who care about that issue people who already hated her?
Hate him all you want, just don't do it for this, it is a non-issue.
Giving classified information to a reporter is a non-issue. Well, then giving classified information to another nation would also be a non-issue, right? I mean, if the reporter publishes that classified information then it's not like the distribution of it can be controlled, it's going to get to any country that cares to pay attention, right? So if Hillary left her email server wide open, for example, and another nation went in and got that information, it's really a non-issue because that's essentially the same thing as officials in the presidential administration just giving the classified information to a journalist and encouraging them to publish it. In other words, it's a non-issue.
I also find it simply amazing that this is a huge deal to certain people, while at the same time, those same people are voting Clinton, who has done much much worse.
You really find it amazing that partisan idiots would find one person's disclosure of classified information to be a big deal, but then claim that another person's disclosure of classified information is a non-issue? That seriously amazes you? Have you looked in a mirror?
What about those of us who think that what Clinton and Cheney each did are both a big deal? Are you amazed at us also?
Do you mean like having secret government emails on a home server?
That's not treason.
Like knowingly allowing soldiers and an Ambassador to die in Benghazi and then blaming it all on a Youtube video?
That also is not treason.
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. You strike me as the kind of person who gives a shit about the Constitution, did you skip the part where it defines treason or did you just not understand it? James Madison even spelled out why they defined treason - to stop partisan idiots from accusing each other of treason when it was never committed.
As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Sanders would have gotten a statistically significant increase in votes from that demographic
You're aware that there are many votes that the Democratic party is losing by not nominating Sanders, right? There are actually several terms for those kinds of people. You're also aware that Sanders consistently beat Trump in previous polls, right?
Wow, stop dusting me please! I just almost got all of the dust off me, and look at this, you just toss all of this more on!
Listen, I'm not going to do a feature-by-feature comparison of other programs compared to yours. There are several reasons for that. The primary one is that I have never and will never use your software, so I don't know or care what features it has.
The entire point of bringing up other programs is to show that using software written by a spammer is not a requirement if you want something to manage your hosts file. And that is a statement of fact. Is it feature-for-feature equivalent? Of course not, why write the exact same piece of software? But you don't need to download and run a spammer's software if you want to manage your hosts file. That's my point, argue about your own features or accomplishments all you want, it doesn't change my point.
P.S.=> I don't spam
Yes, APK, you DO spam. You have a fantastic 20 or so year history of online posts where you are spamming. Are you spamming right here, right now? That doesn't matter, you're still a spammer. You still spam, whether you are doing it right now or not. You have spent considerable time earning the right to be called a spammer. Remember all of those Slashdot threads where you would post 40 ads in the same thread? Someone would down-mod one piece of spam, and you come along and post another, and then rejoice about how you're "defeating" the moderation system in order to get your spam seen. Remember that? That's called being a spammer, APK. It doesn't matter that the thread was about ad blocking, if you go in and post 40 ads then you are spamming. People who spam are called spammers. You are a spammer. Slashdot has actually written a series of filters specifically to stop your spam. I'm sure you're going to claim victory and gloat about trying to defeat those also, which is exactly how a spammer would react. It doesn't matter if you are doing it right this second or not, you're a spammer.
I'm sure you've heard the joke. It applies to you. You might not be spamming right now, but you ARE a spammer.
A backpacker is traveling through Ireland when it starts to rain. He decides to wait out the storm in a nearby pub. The only other person at the bar is an older man staring at his drink. After a few moments of silence the man turns to the backpacker and says in a thick Irish accent:
"You see this bar? I built this bar with my own bare hands. I cut down every tree and made the lumber myself. I toiled away through the wind and cold, but do they call me McGreggor the bar builder? No."
He continued "Do you see that stone wall out there? I built that wall with my own bare hands. I found every stone and placed them just right through the rain and the mud, but do they call me McGreggor the wall builder? No."
"Do ya see that pier out there on the lake? I built that pier with my own bare hands, driving each piling deep into ground so that it would last a lifetime. Do they call me McGreggor the pier builder? No."
"But ya fuck one goat.."
You trying to argue that you're not a spammer is like trying to argue that you're not a child molester because you only did it those 4 times! I'm not molesting a child right now, so I'm not a child molester! That's your logic.
I would suggest that we need more parties involved, and let people pick from a more broad array of choices. Let the Democrats do whatever they want, if they want to continue on as the slightly more liberal version of Republicans, I don't want to tell them they need to change. I'm not going to vote for them, but I don't think they need to change if that's what they want to be. The same kind of support that Bernie had could be used to energize the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, etc parties and elevate them to the level where the media is forced to cover them, like what happened with Bernie.
Hillary's and Bernie's stances are 99.9% identical
I'm sure you could find a particular point in time where that statement is almost true. Bernie has had the same stances for decades, so depending on what Hillary says she stands for today then that statement might be correct. It doesn't mean she'll stand for any of that stuff tomorrow of course (it all depends on where her money is coming from that day), but hey, a broken clock is right twice a day, right?
Anyway, it sounds like you didn't even read my comment. It's not all about policy, is it? It's about corruption too, isn't it?
Oh wow, is that what was missing? Not enough grassroots support for Bernie? That was the problem?
The ONLY support he had was grassroots. What he was lacking was the party support that they were contractually obligated to provide, the media coverage that those running the DNC didn't want him to have, and debates that would have exposed him to a larger audience and given him more a boost over Clinton.
In 2008 the Democrats had 26 debates. Clinton participated in all of them, Obama only missed one. Clinton, the "party favorite", lead Obama by 10 points at the start, 35% to 25%, and she would lead him by over 20 points eventually. But she lost her lead in February, and didn't get it back again. The party wasn't going to make the same mistake twice. In 2016 the DNC said that there were going to be 6 debates, because they don't want to threaten the impending coronation of Clinton, do they? Eventually a total of 9 were held, with Clinton and Sanders appearing in all of them. In the first debate support for Sanders was at 25% (sound familiar?), but Sanders didn't get above 40% before the debate schedule ended (in April; the last primaries happened in June).
But I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. I'm sure the problem was not that the DNC was actively working against Sanders and for Clinton, but just that Sanders didn't have enough grassroots support. Because if there's one thing this election showed, it's that Sanders had hardly any grassroots support.
But listen, I'm not trying to change the policies of any party. They can all nominate whoever they want, and I'm going to vote for the person that I think best represents me. If they want my vote, then they'll nominate someone who represents me. Clinton doesn't, and Trump doesn't, so neither of them have earned my vote (the Democrats could have made up a lot of ground there with a VP pick like Warren, but I guess it's better to pick some vanilla guy that no one outside of Virginia has heard of). It's really that simple. If polls of likability are any indication, then it's time to unseat both major parties from their positions and get another 1 or 2 parties into the mix. The 2 major parties don't even represent a majority of Americans, we need more choices. There are too many points of view to expect either major party to satisfy most people.
Look, I realize that you hate Hillary with the intensity of a thousand suns, but it turns out that many people like her.
Not as many as you think (in fact, not even a simple majority). A majority of people either "dislike" or "strongly" dislike both Trump and Clinton, they are the #1 and #2 most-disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling. Additionally, most of the people who responded saying that they were going to vote for each of them said that their reason for voting was as a vote against the other candidate. So not even a majority of their own voters are voting because they like them, they are voting because of how much they hate/fear the other candidate.
This is not what representative democracy should look like. Any partisan idiot claiming that anyone else MUST!!! vote a certain way in order to stop the other person, and thereby continuing the status quo, is part of the problem. We need 3 or 4 viable parties and candidates in any major election. The way to get there is not to continue down the same broken path playing the same smoke-and-mirrors game. The media isn't going to pay attention to anything that they aren't paid to pay attention to, but if smaller parties get electoral votes in this election cycle then hopefully things will start to change for the next one.
If a foreign country is trying to affect our elections, that's something worth considering.
You're right, it is.
At least we have Citizens United though.
And at least the US doesn't try to affect politics in other countries.
I agree that the DNC is corrupt and badly in need of change. This is not the way to do it.
Oh, ok. How do you suggest we start the revolution, then? Why not just tear down the whole thing and rebuild? Wouldn't that ultimately be cheaper and less painful than trying to kill each termite and replace each board individually?
If you have to step in a dog turd to dodge a bullet, you do it. It's the smart and sensible choice.
Have you seen the movie "Saw"? Exactly the same premise you came up with. Someone points a gun at you, puts a big pile of dog shit there, and then delights in how they make you jump in the dog shit in order to avoid being shot by the gun that they are shooting at you. It's no less sadistic than when the Democrats decide to nominate the second-most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling and then they tell everyone that we all need to vote for her in order to defeat the only person more disliked than she is. How about if I just decide I don't want to play their game? They had a chance to nominate someone that would have caused me to vote (enthusiastically) for the Democratic party, but they decided instead to nominate someone corrupt and now *I* have to make the sacrifice? I've seen this game before, I know how it ends. The only winning move is not to play. Neither major party gets my vote, and they only have themselves to blame. A lot of those delegates aren't all that super, they made their bed and now they get to lie in it.
Sanders said Clinton was not fit to be president. What exactly changed between then and now? Did Clinton all of a sudden become honest? Did she all of a sudden stop being corrupt? If the Democrats really want to defeat Trump then they shouldn't have nominated the only candidate who can lose to him.
The Trump campaign should really be thanking the Democratic party for nominating the only person who could possibly lose to Donald Fucking Trump.
And if the emails were in fact edited the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz wouldn't say anything in their own defense, would they?
See what's happening, though? FUD. Fear of Russia, uncertainty and doubt about the correctness of the emails. Don't focus on the content, it's doubtful and uncertain that they are accurate, anyway. Remember, Russia had a hand in this. We've been historic enemies over the past 2/3 of a century or so. Don't read the emails, just vote for Hillary anyway. Allegations of corruption cannot be proven. Russia had a hand. The Russians want Trump. Fear Russia. Fear Trump. Don't read the emails. Vote for Hillary.
The lawyers behind the class action lawsuit list 6 claims:
The first is fraud against the DNC and Wasserman Schultz, stating that they broke legally binding agreements by strategizing for Clinton. The second is negligent misrepresentation. The third is deceptive conduct by claiming they were remaining neutral when they were not. The fourth is is retribution for monetary donations to Sanders’ campaign. The fifth is that the DNC broke its fiduciary duties during the primaries by not holding a fair process. And the sixth is for negligence, claiming that the DNC did not protect donor information from hackers.
There is no such person that could 'soundly beat him' because most people just vote party line with little more concern than the D or R.
If only the Democrats had a candidate who could energize a young, large field of first-time voters in a way that no other Democrat can.
On a side note - the Republicans had the most winnable presidential race in decades, handed to them on a silver platter. So they decided to nominate just about the most unelectable candidate imaginable. Unbelievable.
Yep, the Democrats parry by nominating a divisive, corrupt politician who is the #2 most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. The only person who is more disliked is her opponent. And then they go and find the most vanilla VP pick that no one outside of his state has ever heard of. They are intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
It makes me wonder about all of their justifications. Now the convention is all about "we must defeat Trump!" If defeating Trump was so important to the Democratic party, then why the hell did they nominate the candidate who's untrusted and corrupt and is going to have a serious uphill battle to beat Trump? Why not just nominate the guy who consistently beat Trump in polls? I mean, if their stated goal is to defeat Trump, then why do anything else? Of course that's a trick question; their goal is not to defeat Trump and never has been, their only goal since the primaries started is to elect Hillary. It just so happens that the Republicans managed to nominate the only candidate who is actually more disliked than Hillary, so now the Democrats have a great boogeyman.
There's also the line about, "hey we've got the most progressive platform evar! Like 80% of Bernie's platform is there!" OK, if Bernie's platform is so great then why does Hillary get to be the president and not Bernie? If you really want those platform policies to be implemented and actually worked on, why not elect the guy who has been shouting about them for years? Why shove through a person who only adopted them because it was either adopt or die? Do you really think she's going to stick to that platform once she gets her foot in the door?
Regardless of all of that stuff though, I still can't vote for Hillary, and some people have a hard time understanding why. The major reason I supported Sanders wasn't because of his policy positions, it was because he legitimately wants to see an end to the political corruption caused by very large amounts of money in the political system. In my opinion, Hillary is a perfect example of that kind of corruption, the kind that I want removed from government. Since I see Bernie as the solution to the problem represented by Hillary, if I am not allowed to vote for the solution then I'm not just going to turn around and vote for the problem. I will not vote for the problem. I will cast my vote for a smaller party who will appreciate my vote far more than either Hillary or Trump will (just like I did in the previous election), and vote for someone else who at least is not part of the problem. And if the Democrats want to bitch and moan about that, and try to place any blame on me for them not getting enough votes to beat Trump, I'll be happy to remind them that there was a very easy way to ensure that they would have beaten Trump, but they decided to go with the corrupt one instead.
Yeah, wow, you really showed me, APK. You're truly a mental heavyweight of debate and argument, what with your endless repeating of the same tired bullshit. I didn't learn that tactic, that must only be taught in the master classes.
I dusted you
Pointing out that an application uses SQLite and only has a 32-bit version is "dusted". Learn something new every day I guess.
You're still a spamming troll though, that much isn't going to change. And anyone else is still flat-out stupid for running any executable delivered by a spammer. We all know what the first rule is when dealing with spammers, don't we?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go nurse all of these just awful wounds that you've inflicted on me. I just can't tell you how much I'm suffering over here.
Wait, what's that sound? Is it the sound of the exact same BS being trotted out for a seventh time in a row? APK, the only sound I want to hear from you is soft slurping as you gently caress my balls.
Get a new argument. Haha, sorry, I know you can't. I just like to dream.
He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing
Haha, right on schedule, again I appreciate you continuing to prove me right.
As for me "talking shit" about you, in the first 2 posts in this thread I called you a spammer (which is a demonstrably true fact, not a statement of opinion), and then I predicted exactly what you were going to do over, and over, and over again. That's not talking shit, that's telling it exactly like it is. I give you a rope, and you hang yourself with it. So that's my "shit talking", a couple statements of fact, which were quickly followed by you doing exactly what I said you were going to do.
He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing
I realize that your limited and stunted emotional development also makes it very difficult for you to come up with any new arguments, but every single one of your posts in this thread does nothing except prove my prediction correct. It's time to quit while you're behind, save up your wits for the next ad blocking story on Slashdot and maybe spend the time to come up with a new argument. When your entire argument is you repeating the exact same crap 6 times in one thread, each time proving me right, then it becomes too easy to predict and you really need to re-evaluate your so-called accomplishments.
I'll now leave to allow you to get back to sucking my balls. Thank you.
APK, how many times are you going to keep trying to prove me right? You've already done it buddy, take a rest. Take a little break. You've proven me right, what, four times in this thread alone? Five? How many more times are you going to prove me right?
Well, shit, might as well make it one more time, right? So, go ahead, respond to this post by saying how your work is so much more impressive than mine, even though you know fuck-all about my work, and make sure to add something about the fact that I want to remain anonymous on this site. Also, please list the same so-called "accomplishments" that you always list. I'd like one more victory before this thread ends, so please, just humor me.
Now, King Me, you fucking shitheel.
Then they should have voted for him.
Almost as many people voted for Sanders as voted for Trump. Millions of people did vote for him, a relatively unknown outsider. If he had received the same level of party support that Clinton had (which all candidates should have, if they are going to follow their own rules), and if the party had decided to do things like hold more debates like he was asking for, and if the media had covered him as anything but a fringe candidate, then maybe more people would have decided that he represents their interests more than Clinton does. But we'll never know what would have happened, because the DNC was pushing the Clinton narrative the entire time and had their friends in the media doing the same.
Off topic, but you can probably start thinking about a new sig.