I am not a (R) or (D), and can actually see that there is collusion between campaigns and the MSM news outlets. They aren't even trying to hide it. It isn't even in question, except by people who are deliberately ignorant or just not paying attention.
As for the "Clinton's had someone killed" it is right up there with "Trump is a NAZI and a KKK Member"... no actual proof is needed for a nice conspiracy.
BTW, both are awful candidates based not on what conspiracies say, but what they have actually said and done. The only explanation for their existence is that the MSM is actively participating in this debacle.
According to all the various collusion artists, that was simply "a mistake" or faulty recollection, and not a lie. A lie requires "intent" (you'll see that one tossed around a lot), which is very hard to "prove". "Why would she lie?" is another key deflection, one that goes to mind reading. But lets look at the facts, which she should have known since she was actually the one there. She didn't land under sniper fire, she didn't run for cover, there was a greeting ceremony... all things she was "mistaken about" . Three bits of false information, she was there. That shows that there was either intent (falsified) or she has mental recollection issues. Either of which should be disqualifying .
I don't care what her reason (or lack of one) is. I do care that the media didn't actually discover it like they should have, that when discovered was glossed over by the media in a parroting of talking points as some sort of "misstatement".
And this wasn't the first time, and wasn't the last time she has "misspoke" about things she was directly involved in. I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth. I don't believe the media will ever cover her with anything less than full collusion. Why? Because that is my experience. And people have the exact same experience and still vote for her. The power of propaganda.
Do you believe that Les Moonves would say, "Yeah, we were in collusion with the DNC to push Trump, to help Hillary win in November" if that was actually the case?
Here's where my original point comes in, I don't believe it, even if Moonves wasn't lying. That's what happens when you're caught lying so many times in the past. The Parable about the Boy who Cried wolf comes to mind. At some point, people stop believing you, even when you're telling the truth.
Trust is one of those things, that once lost, is hard to ever get back.
It isn't lying if you don't tell the story at all. When you're in active collusion with a candidate's campaign and present yourself as "unbiased news source", be it from MSNBC/CBS/ABC/CNN or Fox News, you've lost whatever credibility you're trying to peddle. And if you're not credible news outlet, then what are you actually peddling?
It is so bad, they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
Which leads to "fake news stories" on Facebook. When the people are desperate for REAL coverage, rather than reading Talking Points / biased propaganda from the Campaigns, they will reach out to whatever actually sounds right, regardless of whether it is or not. If you want to blame someone, blame the MSM news for not covering anything even remotely close to an unbiased way.
There is no way in hell that Hillary or Donald are nominees in any campaign except via collusion between campaigns and media. I am 100% convinced that Hillary wanted Donald as the (R) candidate, and the media set him up to win. The fact that she is pretty much tied with him is proof how lousy a candidate she actually is.
I'm just glad it is almost over, and we can watch the final episode of the USA.
1) There are no innocents 2) Bad things happen to good people 3) Good things happen to bad people 4) It all works out in the end.
And a couple more bits say A) Man thinks he is smarter than God B) God's stupidity is smarter than Mans awesome intelligence. C) God actually striking down someone is fairly rare, and usually has a point (i.e. not random) D) Man has killed from the beginning.
I'll bet dollars to donuts you haven't read the whole thing. Which is kinda like "fake stories on Facebook"
That you elected a lying bitch instead of a lying asshole? That you elected someone who has no real accomplishments because the other guy has no real accomplishments?
I'm really trying to see what "rubbing" you're gonna do. My guess, if you're voting for Hillary because you like her lies better than the other lies.
I'll respond to any intelligent response. I am not holding my breath.
Human effort is valuable, not only to society but to the person who does the work. This is something liberals cannot fathom, and why they keep trying to propagate the idea of Universal Income. It is why Collectivism will always fail, because effort is not rewarded, but is punished (via taxes) while idleness is rewarded.
The fact that it really is that simple, but a lot of people can't fathom it is astounding to me.
Machines have always taking jobs away from people, and people have figured out how to do things machines cannot. Nothing new here.
My dad said that things that are easy are usually not valued, and things that are hard tend to be more valuable. Things that require human effort and skill will always have value.
Most of your suggestions are labeled as "discrimination", "Voter intimidation" and "disenfranchisement" of minorities (and why I think you're being sarcastic). But, consider what this message actually says about minorities, that they are INCAPABLE of being educated enough to vote. Let that sink in for a moment.
The receipt can be some soft of salted checksum/encrypted key of your vote. It should be easy for the system to verify that your vote counted without revealing how you voted.
This would solve both problems of verifying your vote counted, and keeping it secret.
Electronic voting doesn't solve any "fraud", it just opens up new avenues. And since there is no way to validate the vote afterwards, it is an easy point to attack.
And this is why you see "calibration" error videos where picking one candidate actually selects the other. It isn't "fraud" without intent, and you can't prove intent with a machine. And since it is a machine, any fraud actually happened elsewhere.
it is virtually impossible to get a "hanging chad" while voting properly, with a single ballot. Both sides knew it, but didn't want their little secrets exposed, since both sides were culpable. Which is why we got the theater of inspectors looking at the ballots trying to determine "intention" of the voter, based on a Hanging Chad.
Florida was exposure of the fraud, it is just that too few people actually recognized it for what it was.
Large scale voting fraud just isn't possible in the US
And you know this how? Because the fact is, you can't possibly assure me that there is no large scale fraud, because we have absolutely no way to detect and protect the vote against fraud. Just because you say it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
My guess, is that fraud is happening in just about every precinct. Which means it is large scale. It may or may not be organized, we wouldn't know. Unless you watch Project Veritas which kinda shows it is organized and large scale.
Which is why I will ONLY support Paper Ballots. Further, I will ONLY support single day voting, and in person with Ink Stains on fingers (except for VERY rare cases).
The system is ripe for fraud, and there is just about no real way to detect it, because there is no mechanism to do so built into our current system.
Of course, there will be the requisite person saying "there is no fraud", which is why I voted six times already (since there is no fraud, it isn't fraud, right?)
A credit union is made up of the members that have accounts there. It is in the best interest of everyone to keep costs down and minimize risk and loses (such as fraud). The real boss is you, the member, not a stock price, not a CEO, not a trader in a cubicle or even a sophisticated computer algorithm.
Credit Unions won't lie to you, to make an extra buck, there is no incentive to do so.
Taxes are not a right of government, anymore than having sex with an unconscious woman is a right. Both require consent. Something you fail to understand.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-...
I am not a (R) or (D), and can actually see that there is collusion between campaigns and the MSM news outlets. They aren't even trying to hide it. It isn't even in question, except by people who are deliberately ignorant or just not paying attention.
As for the "Clinton's had someone killed" it is right up there with "Trump is a NAZI and a KKK Member" ... no actual proof is needed for a nice conspiracy.
BTW, both are awful candidates based not on what conspiracies say, but what they have actually said and done. The only explanation for their existence is that the MSM is actively participating in this debacle.
"We landed under sniper fire ..."
According to all the various collusion artists, that was simply "a mistake" or faulty recollection, and not a lie. A lie requires "intent" (you'll see that one tossed around a lot), which is very hard to "prove". "Why would she lie?" is another key deflection, one that goes to mind reading. But lets look at the facts, which she should have known since she was actually the one there. She didn't land under sniper fire, she didn't run for cover, there was a greeting ceremony ... all things she was "mistaken about" . Three bits of false information, she was there. That shows that there was either intent (falsified) or she has mental recollection issues. Either of which should be disqualifying .
I don't care what her reason (or lack of one) is. I do care that the media didn't actually discover it like they should have, that when discovered was glossed over by the media in a parroting of talking points as some sort of "misstatement".
And this wasn't the first time, and wasn't the last time she has "misspoke" about things she was directly involved in. I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth. I don't believe the media will ever cover her with anything less than full collusion. Why? Because that is my experience. And people have the exact same experience and still vote for her. The power of propaganda.
Do you believe that Les Moonves would say, "Yeah, we were in collusion with the DNC to push Trump, to help Hillary win in November" if that was actually the case?
Here's where my original point comes in, I don't believe it, even if Moonves wasn't lying. That's what happens when you're caught lying so many times in the past. The Parable about the Boy who Cried wolf comes to mind. At some point, people stop believing you, even when you're telling the truth.
Trust is one of those things, that once lost, is hard to ever get back.
He didn't say Facebook spread anything. He said, "Some people believe whatever they see on _________"
It isn't just Facebook, it is just about every media outlet, be it MSNBC/CBS/ABC/CNN or Fox .
It isn't lying if you don't tell the story at all. When you're in active collusion with a candidate's campaign and present yourself as "unbiased news source", be it from MSNBC/CBS/ABC/CNN or Fox News, you've lost whatever credibility you're trying to peddle. And if you're not credible news outlet, then what are you actually peddling?
It is so bad, they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
Which leads to "fake news stories" on Facebook. When the people are desperate for REAL coverage, rather than reading Talking Points / biased propaganda from the Campaigns, they will reach out to whatever actually sounds right, regardless of whether it is or not. If you want to blame someone, blame the MSM news for not covering anything even remotely close to an unbiased way.
There is no way in hell that Hillary or Donald are nominees in any campaign except via collusion between campaigns and media. I am 100% convinced that Hillary wanted Donald as the (R) candidate, and the media set him up to win. The fact that she is pretty much tied with him is proof how lousy a candidate she actually is.
I'm just glad it is almost over, and we can watch the final episode of the USA.
According to that book ...
1) There are no innocents
2) Bad things happen to good people
3) Good things happen to bad people
4) It all works out in the end.
And a couple more bits say
A) Man thinks he is smarter than God
B) God's stupidity is smarter than Mans awesome intelligence.
C) God actually striking down someone is fairly rare, and usually has a point (i.e. not random)
D) Man has killed from the beginning.
I'll bet dollars to donuts you haven't read the whole thing. Which is kinda like "fake stories on Facebook"
Clinton has closer ties to Russia than Trump does, so I sense a bit of projecting going on.
Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
"Accidental" my ass.
So, what you're saying is that a Vagina is the only qualification Hillary has. Nice!
But which one is which?
From my viewpoint, Trump n Clinton are the same. Crazy AND Crooked.
What?
That you elected a lying bitch instead of a lying asshole?
That you elected someone who has no real accomplishments because the other guy has no real accomplishments?
I'm really trying to see what "rubbing" you're gonna do. My guess, if you're voting for Hillary because you like her lies better than the other lies.
I'll respond to any intelligent response. I am not holding my breath.
But it will no longer represent people's sweat.
Human effort is valuable, not only to society but to the person who does the work. This is something liberals cannot fathom, and why they keep trying to propagate the idea of Universal Income. It is why Collectivism will always fail, because effort is not rewarded, but is punished (via taxes) while idleness is rewarded.
The fact that it really is that simple, but a lot of people can't fathom it is astounding to me.
Machines have always taking jobs away from people, and people have figured out how to do things machines cannot. Nothing new here.
My dad said that things that are easy are usually not valued, and things that are hard tend to be more valuable. Things that require human effort and skill will always have value.
I can only assume you're being sarcastic.
Most of your suggestions are labeled as "discrimination", "Voter intimidation" and "disenfranchisement" of minorities (and why I think you're being sarcastic). But, consider what this message actually says about minorities, that they are INCAPABLE of being educated enough to vote. Let that sink in for a moment.
That is the real racism of low expectations.
The receipt can be some soft of salted checksum/encrypted key of your vote. It should be easy for the system to verify that your vote counted without revealing how you voted.
This would solve both problems of verifying your vote counted, and keeping it secret.
He basically said she was "not charged", and incompetent. The problem is, liberals only see that as "innocent" and not the "incompetent" part.
Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. (apologies to Arthur C Clarke)
(NO, I am not voting for Trump either)
Electronic voting doesn't solve any "fraud", it just opens up new avenues. And since there is no way to validate the vote afterwards, it is an easy point to attack.
And this is why you see "calibration" error videos where picking one candidate actually selects the other. It isn't "fraud" without intent, and you can't prove intent with a machine. And since it is a machine, any fraud actually happened elsewhere.
it is virtually impossible to get a "hanging chad" while voting properly, with a single ballot. Both sides knew it, but didn't want their little secrets exposed, since both sides were culpable. Which is why we got the theater of inspectors looking at the ballots trying to determine "intention" of the voter, based on a Hanging Chad.
Florida was exposure of the fraud, it is just that too few people actually recognized it for what it was.
Large scale voting fraud just isn't possible in the US
And you know this how? Because the fact is, you can't possibly assure me that there is no large scale fraud, because we have absolutely no way to detect and protect the vote against fraud. Just because you say it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
My guess, is that fraud is happening in just about every precinct. Which means it is large scale. It may or may not be organized, we wouldn't know. Unless you watch Project Veritas which kinda shows it is organized and large scale.
Which is why I will ONLY support Paper Ballots. Further, I will ONLY support single day voting, and in person with Ink Stains on fingers (except for VERY rare cases).
The system is ripe for fraud, and there is just about no real way to detect it, because there is no mechanism to do so built into our current system.
Of course, there will be the requisite person saying "there is no fraud", which is why I voted six times already (since there is no fraud, it isn't fraud, right?)
A credit union is made up of the members that have accounts there. It is in the best interest of everyone to keep costs down and minimize risk and loses (such as fraud). The real boss is you, the member, not a stock price, not a CEO, not a trader in a cubicle or even a sophisticated computer algorithm.
Credit Unions won't lie to you, to make an extra buck, there is no incentive to do so.
LMAO
Taxes are not a right of government, anymore than having sex with an unconscious woman is a right. Both require consent. Something you fail to understand.
If you're asking if I am rich or famous ... "I don't recall" ;)