Olberman doesn't like Trump's politics, but I doubt he hates him. Anyhow, the scale is quite comprehensive, you don't have to accept Olberman scores, and can make up your own tally based on your view of Trump's personality.
At least nobody ever accused Olberman of being a child rapist.
Good thing for the Donald that Bill Clinton also was best buddy with Epstein.
My point is the grassroots have to take over the Democratic party.
Just pushing one long shot candidacy is not enough, but if the progressives can take over just some positions within the party the next truly progressive candidate may very well pull through. You gotta go for the long haul.
This is not about Republicans per se but Trump specifically.
The only thing he cared about on the Republican platform was to water down the response to Russian aggression in the Ukraine.
In interviews he all but announced he tear up the NATO treaty. The one alliance that still ensures some stability in the Western world, and defeated communism.
Trump Jr. in an interview 2009 boasted about the influx of Russian money into the Trump empire.
As a German its hard for me to believe that the US is about to elect a Trojan horse to be president, but here we are.
From the grave the Soviet Union and the former KGB managed to inflict the most amazing revenge.
I think nearly all politicians fall into that category. Including (and esp) H.R.C. That's basically a no-op comment.
Nope.
Olberman went through a nice exercise to apply a standard medical triage test for personality disorder. It's pretty long, but he plays it straight. This GOP candidate clearly falls outside the category of your normal political malfeasance.
Remarkably, in Germany the party that grew the safety net the most in the past, also cut it back under chancellor SchrÃder, making Germany more competitive again, and massively reducing unemployment. Yet, unsurprisingly the electorate did not reward his party for it.
Glad to hear it, although my European social sensibilities will probably define the limit for government much further out than most Libertarians will be comfortable with.
In a nutshell, I want governments to create the framework for a market driven meritocracy, no limit on how far top achievers can go, while ensuring that the bottom feeders don't have to sell their dignity just to survive.
Always hoped that Liberals and Libertarians at some point will realize that there is a reason that their brands of politics share such similar names. If they could work together to promote the core concepts of personal freedom that they agree on, then this would make a political force to reckon with.
Always liked Bernie. He's a rare breed who sticks to his principles, but, as you were pointing out, still knows how to pragmatically work within the system. Coming from a completely different ideological background the Republicans only had Ron Paul who I find was similarly principled without being a dick about it. Unfortunately, his son doesn't even come close to fill his shoes.
You seem to be under the impression that there was just one court case. There wasn't.
Gawker is an awful outlet, and where the cases have merits of course they deserved to get hammered. But this is not what this was about. Read the Forbes article. This was a concerted effort to drive them out of business, once and for all, because Thiel felt slighted.
I don't consider myself particularly left. Have strong sympathy for Libertarians in the Ron Paul mold, hence my disappointment with Thiel.
Where I break with orthodox US Libertarians is that I don't regard markets as a natural state that just happens by itself. You need limited government to create them, and to ensure they keep working.
It's called assisted suicide for a reason. So yes, empathy can sometimes lead to the act of killing.
Pretty straightforward with people since they can tell you what they want. Less so with animals. My 16 year old dog is not doing that well anymore, going to have to make a difficult call pretty soon.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
Olberman doesn't like Trump's politics, but I doubt he hates him. Anyhow, the scale is quite comprehensive, you don't have to accept Olberman scores, and can make up your own tally based on your view of Trump's personality.
At least nobody ever accused Olberman of being a child rapist.
Good thing for the Donald that Bill Clinton also was best buddy with Epstein.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
My point is the grassroots have to take over the Democratic party.
Just pushing one long shot candidacy is not enough, but if the progressives can take over just some positions within the party the next truly progressive candidate may very well pull through. You gotta go for the long haul.
How about working at the grassroots to make the Democrats more progressive, so next time a Bernie type candidate runs, he/she actually makes it?
Too much work?
This is not about Republicans per se but Trump specifically.
The only thing he cared about on the Republican platform was to water down the response to Russian aggression in the Ukraine.
In interviews he all but announced he tear up the NATO treaty. The one alliance that still ensures some stability in the Western world, and defeated communism.
Trump Jr. in an interview 2009 boasted about the influx of Russian money into the Trump empire.
As a German its hard for me to believe that the US is about to elect a Trojan horse to be president, but here we are.
From the grave the Soviet Union and the former KGB managed to inflict the most amazing revenge.
Facts don't matter, it's all about what feels right.
If you think the RNC does not compile such lists I have a really nice bridge to sell you.
To sum up: Trumpistas are now concern trolling the Dems with material that a hostile foreign secret service dug up for them.
I think nearly all politicians fall into that category. Including (and esp) H.R.C. That's basically a no-op comment.
Nope.
Olberman went through a nice exercise to apply a standard medical triage test for personality disorder. It's pretty long, but he plays it straight. This GOP candidate clearly falls outside the category of your normal political malfeasance.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news...
We may have to build this wall to the South after all ...
(Saying that as a Canadian resident).
If you are surprised by anything in these emails you haven't been paying attention. Politics in the US is a blood sport.
Nor should it be surprising to anyone that Putin wants Trump in power.
The only slightly surprising thing about this story is that the Russian secret service was sloppy enough to get caught.
Remarkably, in Germany the party that grew the safety net the most in the past, also cut it back under chancellor SchrÃder, making Germany more competitive again, and massively reducing unemployment. Yet, unsurprisingly the electorate did not reward his party for it.
Why do we keep trying to tame a potential run-away chain reaction if there are perfectly good alternatives?
Glad to hear it, although my European social sensibilities will probably define the limit for government much further out than most Libertarians will be comfortable with.
In a nutshell, I want governments to create the framework for a market driven meritocracy, no limit on how far top achievers can go, while ensuring that the bottom feeders don't have to sell their dignity just to survive.
Clearly journalists don't agree with you on that.
Freedom dies by thousands cuts.
Always hoped that Liberals and Libertarians at some point will realize that there is a reason that their brands of politics share such similar names. If they could work together to promote the core concepts of personal freedom that they agree on, then this would make a political force to reckon with.
Always liked Bernie. He's a rare breed who sticks to his principles, but, as you were pointing out, still knows how to pragmatically work within the system. Coming from a completely different ideological background the Republicans only had Ron Paul who I find was similarly principled without being a dick about it. Unfortunately, his son doesn't even come close to fill his shoes.
You seem to be under the impression that there was just one court case. There wasn't.
Gawker is an awful outlet, and where the cases have merits of course they deserved to get hammered. But this is not what this was about. Read the Forbes article. This was a concerted effort to drive them out of business, once and for all, because Thiel felt slighted.
Very different thing.
I don't consider myself particularly left. Have strong sympathy for Libertarians in the Ron Paul mold, hence my disappointment with Thiel.
Where I break with orthodox US Libertarians is that I don't regard markets as a natural state that just happens by itself. You need limited government to create them, and to ensure they keep working.
Which is why international pressure is the only hope to get her going on this front. Unlike Trump, she will listen to allies.
On 1 to 10 hate scale that barely registers at a 3.
It's called assisted suicide for a reason. So yes, empathy can sometimes lead to the act of killing.
Pretty straightforward with people since they can tell you what they want. Less so with animals. My 16 year old dog is not doing that well anymore, going to have to make a difficult call pretty soon.
If you read the Forbes article that I linked. you will realize that the story is much more sinister than that.
To destroy any kind of journalism by clandestinely funding litigation is also morally bankrupt.
The way to destroy a media site is by denying it clicks.
I think it's safe to say that Peter Thiel will be fine.
But just for the record, I don't hate the man, I am just disappointed. Not only for this, but also for using his money to destroy Gawker, while trying to keep this out of the public eye.
He is not the man I thought he was.