The 3 women I slept with post the one I loved I found physically repulsive despite all of them wanting me.
Why bother? I did that once, back when I was younger, but never did it again. I'd rather sit at home with porn than try to get it up for someone I find repulsive.
I am also not your typical slashdot reader. I am not a programmer, engineer or scientist. I just like to read about that stuff because it's intetesting.
Well that's plainly obvious to me. You're not going off about how global warming is a liberal conspiracy, or how every women out there will cry rape if you even look at her, or how HOSTS files are the best thing since sliced bread. You're also not calling anyone an idiot. You definitely don't fit in here.:-)
I expect this development to get worse and only change once society has moved into some sort of utopian mating-and-reproduction ritual or mechanism that tries to mitigate the effects of humanity moving further away from their mammal originins.
I think the development that should fix this is reducing or eliminating the aging process. There's already a lot of research going into this. If we can extend human lifespans to, say, 200, that'll give people a lot more time to have kids, and so even with a paltry birth rate, the much lower death rate will equal a stable if not growing population. Our modern society just isn't geared for our biology: our biology wants us to start banging each other as teenagers and popping kids out at 16-24, but our modern societies want us to go to school until 18, go to school some more until 22-26, then go to work and build a career, then start thinking about having kids around 30-35, and that's if there's no hiccups, and assumes you actually meet someone you really want to make that investment in and commitment with (since these days, the penalties for screwing up and choosing the wrong partner are very high). If we re-tune our biology so that it's feasible to wait until 50 to have kids (and at 50, we still have the body and energy of a present-day 25-year-old), and we can have kids between 50 and 150 years of age (perhaps with a bit of medical help), then this should no longer be a problem.
7. The globalist propaganda says global warming and overpopulation is rampant, discouraging people from having children.
Global warming is real, you dolt. There's tons of evidence proving it, and no serious scientists doubts it any more.
Overpopulation may be a problem in some 3rd-world nations, but in 1st-world nations it's not, in fact the reverse is a problem. Of course, the globalists' solution is to encourage large-scale mass migrations.
6. The economy is still crap
B..b..but the Democrats tell us the economy is great! The Dow Jones average is higher than ever!!
Some of your points really hit the nail on the head (#1, #6) and others have a fair amount of truth to them (#2, #3, #4). A lot of guys are raised by single moms these days and I do think that has an effect. I think #5 may be wrong though, if anything that probably mitigates things as it allows people to be more social than they would without these technologies. Why do you think so many people bemoan "hookup apps" like Tinder? #8 is likely wrong because that hasn't changed for decades. #7 is just plain silly and the first half flat wrong as I said before; I doubt that many people are refusing to have kids just because of overpopulation fears. The ones who are really worried about that would be ones who insist on adopting kids, especially from 3rd-world nations like Brangelina. How many people do you know who do that?
Dating is a buyer's market and the buyers are women
Over the age of 35 or so, this isn't true, especially in east-coast cities. There's a surplus of single women at these ages. Of course, these women are also less able to have kids, but not completely. This is also about the age where middle-class to upper-middle-class people finally decide they have their careers in order enough to think about having kids, but now the woman's biological clock is ticking hard. I see it a lot on dating sites in my metro area: women who are pushing 40 (or over), are never married and have no kids, all of a sudden want to get serious and find someone and start a family. One 43yo woman I had a date with told me right away that she had already tried IVF! WTF? From what I'm hearing, more and more women like this (40+ professionals) are just having kids this way without bothering with the dating and marriage bit. I guess they never really considered beforehand what hell it is raising a kid by yourself; I have a friend like this, with a massively ADHD kid, and I really feel sorry for her.
Well I ended up divorced in my 40s, and I will tell you my dating life is completely non-existent. Granted I have several factors working against me that contribute heavily towards my lack of success but having a full time job, disposable income and a (new) vehicle isn't doing anything to help.
I'm in exactly the same boat right now: full-time job, disposable income, new vehicle, excellent shape, tall & thin (not pudgy or fat like most 40+ guys these days), etc.
I can point to some problems both on my end and on the womens' side. For me, it's location (I live outside a major metro area with a surplus of women, women seem to only want to date guys living downtown), and probably also personality (I'm not a marketer or sales guy, I'm a software engineer on Slashdot, need I say more?). Also I've gotten really picky after this divorce; I don't want to make the same mistake, so I'm looking for someone reasonably attractive, educated, employed, who is going to be a personality match for me (e.g., if they're really into drinking lots of beer and having a bunch of big dogs and a Jeep, they're not my type). For them, it appears to be a ridiculous amount of pickiness (far more than my own): they want a guy who drives a BMW, has a ton of money, isn't separated or recently divorced, dresses like a GQ model, ultra-fit, and an extremely outgoing personality, and also, he needs to live across the street from her. It seems that, at this age, even though so many of these women are never-married themselves, they're completely unwilling to make any kind of sacrifice in order to pursue a serious relationship.
(girls and guys both appear to prefer passive-aggressive 'just don't talk to them until they go away' breakups, rather than clearly letting people know so they can move their shit on faster.
The question over mercury amalgam should be moot now. You say it has "poor bio-availability", but that's still non-zero, plus you even admit that the effect of other things on it (like fluoride ions, or perhaps other stuff you might put in your mouth like fruit juices or whatever) aren't completely understood.
So why put something bearing mercury in your mouth at all? 50 years ago, the answer was simple: the alternatives were having cavities, or getting expensive gold fillings. These days, we have resin fillings which are superior in every way: they don't have any harmful metals, they're tooth-colored so they look a lot better, and they're even much stronger (I have one on the tip of one of my incisors which got chipped; it's been there a couple years now and still looks great).
Debating mercury in fillings seems a bit like debating the effects of tetraethyl lead in gasoline, or debating whether AmigaOS or OS/2 would be better for modern business computing.
Another factor is that different people are really, really different, and have very different bacteria in their bodies. This is now thought to be the reason some of us are fat and can't lose weight, and others are thin and have no trouble maintaining their weight with little to no exercise (the flora in the gut).
It's the same in the mouth: some people are highly susceptible to cavities, others just aren't, probably because of extremely different bacteria.
We really are not human, in the genetic sense: in reality, we're symbiotic lifeforms, much like the Trill from Star Trek or Gua'ould from Stargate, except instead of giant worms in our abdomens controlling our minds, we have various colonies of bacteria living in us which have a lot more to do with the way we live than we realized in the recent past.
It's absolutely a regional thing, and race does play a factor because socioeconomic class plays a factor: poor people are far, far more likely to be obese, so of course black women are more likely too since they're more likely to be poor.
If you want to see a place in the US with almost zero obese people, take a trip to Manhattan and walk around. Good luck ever seeing anyone who's obese; maybe a some overweight people here and there, but no obese ones. For the opposite, take a trip to various cities in the South.
It depends on what your siding is made of. If it's unpainted wood, you're going to have serious problems before long (unless it's certain woods that actually work unpainted as siding, I think cedar is one).
Commercial buildings are usually not made with wood framing and wood siding, unless they're small; usually they're made of things like concrete, brick, etc. Painting concrete is a purely cosmetic step.
You're conveniently forgetting when she directed her assistant to strip classification markings and send the data. You're intentionally minimizing the crime. As for "classified at the time they were sent", that's BS. Information is classified when it's created, not when someone marks it "classified". You've obviously never held a security clearance, so your opinion here is worthless.
You're a fucking moron. It isn't a lie when you believe it's the truth. Fuck you.
And only a fucking idiot like you would think someone's a conservative just because they call out bias when they see it. You probably think all the Bernie voters are conservatives too because they don't like your queen.
You're an idiot. Comey even came out and said the email server scandal was a crime, and then basically admitted that no prosecutor was going to bother. Just because you can't get someone to prosecute someone because they're too powerful doesn't mean they didn't commit a crime.
And mishandling classified information willfully is a far greater crime than going 1mph over the limit.
Because this is America, so if you don't support the (R) candidate, you must automatically be a (D), and vice versa. People here (even here on Slashdot it seems) are simply too stupid to grasp the idea that someone might not be either, or may not agree with the nomination pick of the party they usually side with. However, from what I've seen, regular Americans are finally coming around on these things, however Slashdot is full of the most backwards-thinking Americans I've ever seen, so it doesn't surprise me that they haven't caught up yet.
You really need a better analogy than the bed-of-nails thing, that makes no sense at all. Nails are actually extremely useful objects when used properly, and stepping on 100 has nothing to do with desensitization, it's because the pressure of your weight is spread out among so many.
If you want an analogy, try something along the lines of allergic responses, such as feeding tiny bits of peanut over time to kids who are deathly allergic to peanuts to reduce their allergic response to it. Or maybe something about corruption (Hillary's stock and trade), where slowly increasing the amount of it makes people used to it.
There is a reason no republican has won the whitehouse since Reagan with anything but the slimmest of margins while most of the democrats that win do so by landslides like Obama's 2008 and 2012 victories. The mathematics of the electoral college is against Republicans being able to win.
WTF? This is some serious twisting of the facts right here.
Only 2 Democrats have even won the White House since Reagan! 2! Bill Clinton was the first, and Obama was the second. You have a sample size of 2!!!
And Bill didn't even win a majority of the popular vote, he won with a minority because Perot took a good chunk of it.
Obama didn't win by a "landslide" in 2012. He did win handily in 2008, that's true (but it was no "landslide"), but in 2012 it was closer. Obama energized the youth vote in 2008 and got them to finally get out and vote, but then he stabbed them in the back with his right-wing policies so many of them didn't bother to turn out in 2012, so it was much closer then.
The real truth is there hasn't been a "landslide" since the 1984 election. 1988 was the closest to it, then 2008 next closest; all the other years were somewhat close.
Calling the 2008 election a "landslide of unprecedented proportions" is just plain ridiculous. See again the 1984 election for a true landslide: Reagan won against Mondale 525-13. Mondale only carried one state (MN) and DC. The next election in recent years closest to this is the 1988 election, where Bush I beat Dukakis 426-111, but at least here Dukakis won 10 states + DC. In 2008, Obama only won 365-173. McCain won 22 states, which is nearly half! Calling that a "landslide" is just plain stupid. In 2012, it was closer (332-206), with Romney winning 24 states (2 more than McCain). When a candidate wins nearly half the states, and someone like you calls that a "landslide", I can only call you a liar: that's willful twisting of the truth.
(BTW, if you go back to 1980, that was also probably a landslide, 489-49 with Carter winning 6 states + DC.)
The big problem with the numbers in your analysis at the end is that you're assuming people are going to turn out to vote. The US has long had low turnout numbers; 2008 was a peak with historically-high turnout, except that it was only 58% (just barely higher than 2004 with almost 57%)! All other elections going back to the 70s, it hovers between 50-55% usually. So no, even in 2008 Obama didn't manage to get that many more people to show up to vote. If you want to see really high turnout, you need to go back to 1968 where the turnout was a "whopping" 61%. (They managed to hit 62% in '64, and 63% in '60.) I won't be surprised to see this year's turnout to be less than 50%, as it was in 1992 when your idol Bill Clinton won with a 49% turnout and only 31 states +DC.
Bottom line: anything could happen in this election. I wouldn't be too surprised to see one of the 3rd parties top 10% of the popular vote even.
We all agree she was careless with her emails, but I screw up emails also
Do you handle classified information in your emails? If not, go get a job that requires a security clearance, send some classified information through your private email account, then tell your FSO and see what happens to you.
I'm sorry, that's BS. You were right in 2008: Obama was a far, far, far better choice. The only thing the right wing could do about him back then was come up with silly crap like the birth certificate thing. And that was mainly from far-right people who had no power in Congress anyway. Stuff some loons on the internet say just isn't important.
With Hillary, her crimes are real, so this is very likely to result in impeachment and government gridlock. We never saw that with Obama, not to that scale, just your typical obstructionism. With Hillary, you're going to wish you had elected Bernie so that you could have more of that instead of what you're going to get with Hillary, which is a complete government shutdown for years, worse than we saw with Bill's scandal.
Oh, that's a bunch of BS. Hillary's supporters by and large do not "acknowledge they are bad things". They don't do that at all: they instead actually deny they happened! Or in the case of the emails (which they can't deny) they claim that it wasn't a crime (it was), that it was just a tiny mistake that didn't amount to anything, etc.
Some Hillary supporters actually claim the bad things are good things (!), and that they need someone "dirty" to "get things done in Washington".
As for the Trump supporters, that's BS too. Some of them I'm sure do cheer that stuff, but most Trump "supporters" only seem to be voting for him because they hate Hillary. (Though I guess this gets into semantics: are you calling all voters for that person "supporters", or only their enthusiastic supporters? If you mean the latter than I rescind the above about the Trump supporters.)
And those people you know are just as right as you are, maybe more so, maybe less. You don't know. Their opinion is perfectly valid, just as much as yours.
If they tried to claim Trump was a great, ethical person, then sure you could claim they're obviously wrong, but they're not claiming that at all. They're acknowledging that he's terrible, but in their judgment Hillary is even more terrible, and you have no way of proving that. (No, Politifact is not an unbiased source or a way of proving who's a bigger liar.)
Not voting for either of them is certainly a valid approach, and the one I intend to take too, but given that due to Duverger's Law either Hillary or Trump is almost certain to win, you can't fault those people for wanting to prevent who they see as the worse candidate from winning.
Personally, I'm leaning towards preferring Trump, for many reasons all related to Hillary (1. she wants to start more wars, 2. I don't want to reward her and the DNC for their obvious rigging, 3. she's a criminal who can't be prosecuted for the email fiasco because she's too powerful), but he's so awful I don't think I can bring myself to vote for him either, so I plan to vote for Stein. I'm still not convinced that Trump is actually genuine here; it still looks possible that he's only there to destroy the RNC from within and give Hillary the election.
Slashdot Mirror
The 3 women I slept with post the one I loved I found physically repulsive despite all of them wanting me.
Why bother? I did that once, back when I was younger, but never did it again. I'd rather sit at home with porn than try to get it up for someone I find repulsive.
I am also not your typical slashdot reader. I am not a programmer, engineer or scientist. I just like to read about that stuff because it's intetesting.
Well that's plainly obvious to me. You're not going off about how global warming is a liberal conspiracy, or how every women out there will cry rape if you even look at her, or how HOSTS files are the best thing since sliced bread. You're also not calling anyone an idiot. You definitely don't fit in here. :-)
I expect this development to get worse and only change once society has moved into some sort of utopian mating-and-reproduction ritual or mechanism that tries to mitigate the effects of humanity moving further away from their mammal originins.
I think the development that should fix this is reducing or eliminating the aging process. There's already a lot of research going into this. If we can extend human lifespans to, say, 200, that'll give people a lot more time to have kids, and so even with a paltry birth rate, the much lower death rate will equal a stable if not growing population. Our modern society just isn't geared for our biology: our biology wants us to start banging each other as teenagers and popping kids out at 16-24, but our modern societies want us to go to school until 18, go to school some more until 22-26, then go to work and build a career, then start thinking about having kids around 30-35, and that's if there's no hiccups, and assumes you actually meet someone you really want to make that investment in and commitment with (since these days, the penalties for screwing up and choosing the wrong partner are very high). If we re-tune our biology so that it's feasible to wait until 50 to have kids (and at 50, we still have the body and energy of a present-day 25-year-old), and we can have kids between 50 and 150 years of age (perhaps with a bit of medical help), then this should no longer be a problem.
7. The globalist propaganda says global warming and overpopulation is rampant, discouraging people from having children.
Global warming is real, you dolt. There's tons of evidence proving it, and no serious scientists doubts it any more.
Overpopulation may be a problem in some 3rd-world nations, but in 1st-world nations it's not, in fact the reverse is a problem. Of course, the globalists' solution is to encourage large-scale mass migrations.
6. The economy is still crap
B..b..but the Democrats tell us the economy is great! The Dow Jones average is higher than ever!!
Some of your points really hit the nail on the head (#1, #6) and others have a fair amount of truth to them (#2, #3, #4). A lot of guys are raised by single moms these days and I do think that has an effect. I think #5 may be wrong though, if anything that probably mitigates things as it allows people to be more social than they would without these technologies. Why do you think so many people bemoan "hookup apps" like Tinder? #8 is likely wrong because that hasn't changed for decades. #7 is just plain silly and the first half flat wrong as I said before; I doubt that many people are refusing to have kids just because of overpopulation fears. The ones who are really worried about that would be ones who insist on adopting kids, especially from 3rd-world nations like Brangelina. How many people do you know who do that?
Dating is a buyer's market and the buyers are women
Over the age of 35 or so, this isn't true, especially in east-coast cities. There's a surplus of single women at these ages. Of course, these women are also less able to have kids, but not completely. This is also about the age where middle-class to upper-middle-class people finally decide they have their careers in order enough to think about having kids, but now the woman's biological clock is ticking hard. I see it a lot on dating sites in my metro area: women who are pushing 40 (or over), are never married and have no kids, all of a sudden want to get serious and find someone and start a family. One 43yo woman I had a date with told me right away that she had already tried IVF! WTF? From what I'm hearing, more and more women like this (40+ professionals) are just having kids this way without bothering with the dating and marriage bit. I guess they never really considered beforehand what hell it is raising a kid by yourself; I have a friend like this, with a massively ADHD kid, and I really feel sorry for her.
Well I ended up divorced in my 40s, and I will tell you my dating life is completely non-existent. Granted I have several factors working against me that contribute heavily towards my lack of success but having a full time job, disposable income and a (new) vehicle isn't doing anything to help.
I'm in exactly the same boat right now: full-time job, disposable income, new vehicle, excellent shape, tall & thin (not pudgy or fat like most 40+ guys these days), etc.
I can point to some problems both on my end and on the womens' side. For me, it's location (I live outside a major metro area with a surplus of women, women seem to only want to date guys living downtown), and probably also personality (I'm not a marketer or sales guy, I'm a software engineer on Slashdot, need I say more?). Also I've gotten really picky after this divorce; I don't want to make the same mistake, so I'm looking for someone reasonably attractive, educated, employed, who is going to be a personality match for me (e.g., if they're really into drinking lots of beer and having a bunch of big dogs and a Jeep, they're not my type). For them, it appears to be a ridiculous amount of pickiness (far more than my own): they want a guy who drives a BMW, has a ton of money, isn't separated or recently divorced, dresses like a GQ model, ultra-fit, and an extremely outgoing personality, and also, he needs to live across the street from her. It seems that, at this age, even though so many of these women are never-married themselves, they're completely unwilling to make any kind of sacrifice in order to pursue a serious relationship.
(girls and guys both appear to prefer passive-aggressive 'just don't talk to them until they go away' breakups, rather than clearly letting people know so they can move their shit on faster.
There's a new term for this: "ghosting".
Try the "Glide" floss. I have tight contacts too in places which will tear regular floss apart, but the Glide stuff works much better.
The question over mercury amalgam should be moot now. You say it has "poor bio-availability", but that's still non-zero, plus you even admit that the effect of other things on it (like fluoride ions, or perhaps other stuff you might put in your mouth like fruit juices or whatever) aren't completely understood.
So why put something bearing mercury in your mouth at all? 50 years ago, the answer was simple: the alternatives were having cavities, or getting expensive gold fillings. These days, we have resin fillings which are superior in every way: they don't have any harmful metals, they're tooth-colored so they look a lot better, and they're even much stronger (I have one on the tip of one of my incisors which got chipped; it's been there a couple years now and still looks great).
Debating mercury in fillings seems a bit like debating the effects of tetraethyl lead in gasoline, or debating whether AmigaOS or OS/2 would be better for modern business computing.
If that happens, can't you just take some extra courses, complete the certifications, and become a specialist yourself?
Another factor is that different people are really, really different, and have very different bacteria in their bodies. This is now thought to be the reason some of us are fat and can't lose weight, and others are thin and have no trouble maintaining their weight with little to no exercise (the flora in the gut).
It's the same in the mouth: some people are highly susceptible to cavities, others just aren't, probably because of extremely different bacteria.
We really are not human, in the genetic sense: in reality, we're symbiotic lifeforms, much like the Trill from Star Trek or Gua'ould from Stargate, except instead of giant worms in our abdomens controlling our minds, we have various colonies of bacteria living in us which have a lot more to do with the way we live than we realized in the recent past.
Maybe that explains their funny accent.
It's absolutely a regional thing, and race does play a factor because socioeconomic class plays a factor: poor people are far, far more likely to be obese, so of course black women are more likely too since they're more likely to be poor.
If you want to see a place in the US with almost zero obese people, take a trip to Manhattan and walk around. Good luck ever seeing anyone who's obese; maybe a some overweight people here and there, but no obese ones. For the opposite, take a trip to various cities in the South.
It depends on what your siding is made of. If it's unpainted wood, you're going to have serious problems before long (unless it's certain woods that actually work unpainted as siding, I think cedar is one).
Commercial buildings are usually not made with wood framing and wood siding, unless they're small; usually they're made of things like concrete, brick, etc. Painting concrete is a purely cosmetic step.
Fortunately in my jurisdiction escorts are legal and I still have enough to go for it.
Where's that?
You're conveniently forgetting when she directed her assistant to strip classification markings and send the data. You're intentionally minimizing the crime. As for "classified at the time they were sent", that's BS. Information is classified when it's created, not when someone marks it "classified". You've obviously never held a security clearance, so your opinion here is worthless.
You're a fucking moron. It isn't a lie when you believe it's the truth. Fuck you.
And only a fucking idiot like you would think someone's a conservative just because they call out bias when they see it. You probably think all the Bernie voters are conservatives too because they don't like your queen.
You're an idiot. Comey even came out and said the email server scandal was a crime, and then basically admitted that no prosecutor was going to bother. Just because you can't get someone to prosecute someone because they're too powerful doesn't mean they didn't commit a crime.
And mishandling classified information willfully is a far greater crime than going 1mph over the limit.
Because this is America, so if you don't support the (R) candidate, you must automatically be a (D), and vice versa. People here (even here on Slashdot it seems) are simply too stupid to grasp the idea that someone might not be either, or may not agree with the nomination pick of the party they usually side with. However, from what I've seen, regular Americans are finally coming around on these things, however Slashdot is full of the most backwards-thinking Americans I've ever seen, so it doesn't surprise me that they haven't caught up yet.
You really need a better analogy than the bed-of-nails thing, that makes no sense at all. Nails are actually extremely useful objects when used properly, and stepping on 100 has nothing to do with desensitization, it's because the pressure of your weight is spread out among so many.
If you want an analogy, try something along the lines of allergic responses, such as feeding tiny bits of peanut over time to kids who are deathly allergic to peanuts to reduce their allergic response to it. Or maybe something about corruption (Hillary's stock and trade), where slowly increasing the amount of it makes people used to it.
There is a reason no republican has won the whitehouse since Reagan with anything but the slimmest of margins while most of the democrats that win do so by landslides like Obama's 2008 and 2012 victories. The mathematics of the electoral college is against Republicans being able to win.
WTF? This is some serious twisting of the facts right here.
Only 2 Democrats have even won the White House since Reagan! 2! Bill Clinton was the first, and Obama was the second. You have a sample size of 2!!!
And Bill didn't even win a majority of the popular vote, he won with a minority because Perot took a good chunk of it.
Obama didn't win by a "landslide" in 2012. He did win handily in 2008, that's true (but it was no "landslide"), but in 2012 it was closer. Obama energized the youth vote in 2008 and got them to finally get out and vote, but then he stabbed them in the back with his right-wing policies so many of them didn't bother to turn out in 2012, so it was much closer then.
The real truth is there hasn't been a "landslide" since the 1984 election. 1988 was the closest to it, then 2008 next closest; all the other years were somewhat close.
Calling the 2008 election a "landslide of unprecedented proportions" is just plain ridiculous. See again the 1984 election for a true landslide: Reagan won against Mondale 525-13. Mondale only carried one state (MN) and DC. The next election in recent years closest to this is the 1988 election, where Bush I beat Dukakis 426-111, but at least here Dukakis won 10 states + DC. In 2008, Obama only won 365-173. McCain won 22 states, which is nearly half! Calling that a "landslide" is just plain stupid. In 2012, it was closer (332-206), with Romney winning 24 states (2 more than McCain). When a candidate wins nearly half the states, and someone like you calls that a "landslide", I can only call you a liar: that's willful twisting of the truth.
(BTW, if you go back to 1980, that was also probably a landslide, 489-49 with Carter winning 6 states + DC.)
The big problem with the numbers in your analysis at the end is that you're assuming people are going to turn out to vote. The US has long had low turnout numbers; 2008 was a peak with historically-high turnout, except that it was only 58% (just barely higher than 2004 with almost 57%)! All other elections going back to the 70s, it hovers between 50-55% usually. So no, even in 2008 Obama didn't manage to get that many more people to show up to vote. If you want to see really high turnout, you need to go back to 1968 where the turnout was a "whopping" 61%. (They managed to hit 62% in '64, and 63% in '60.) I won't be surprised to see this year's turnout to be less than 50%, as it was in 1992 when your idol Bill Clinton won with a 49% turnout and only 31 states +DC.
Bottom line: anything could happen in this election. I wouldn't be too surprised to see one of the 3rd parties top 10% of the popular vote even.
We all agree she was careless with her emails, but I screw up emails also
Do you handle classified information in your emails? If not, go get a job that requires a security clearance, send some classified information through your private email account, then tell your FSO and see what happens to you.
I'm sorry, that's BS. You were right in 2008: Obama was a far, far, far better choice. The only thing the right wing could do about him back then was come up with silly crap like the birth certificate thing. And that was mainly from far-right people who had no power in Congress anyway. Stuff some loons on the internet say just isn't important.
With Hillary, her crimes are real, so this is very likely to result in impeachment and government gridlock. We never saw that with Obama, not to that scale, just your typical obstructionism. With Hillary, you're going to wish you had elected Bernie so that you could have more of that instead of what you're going to get with Hillary, which is a complete government shutdown for years, worse than we saw with Bill's scandal.
Oh, that's a bunch of BS. Hillary's supporters by and large do not "acknowledge they are bad things". They don't do that at all: they instead actually deny they happened! Or in the case of the emails (which they can't deny) they claim that it wasn't a crime (it was), that it was just a tiny mistake that didn't amount to anything, etc.
Some Hillary supporters actually claim the bad things are good things (!), and that they need someone "dirty" to "get things done in Washington".
As for the Trump supporters, that's BS too. Some of them I'm sure do cheer that stuff, but most Trump "supporters" only seem to be voting for him because they hate Hillary. (Though I guess this gets into semantics: are you calling all voters for that person "supporters", or only their enthusiastic supporters? If you mean the latter than I rescind the above about the Trump supporters.)
The divorce rate by all measurements is actually down.
That's because the actual marriage rate is down. People just aren't getting married as much any more.
Baby boomers had a hideously high divorce rate, which is why that number is so high, but later generations are getting divorced far less
Yeah, that's because the Millenials aren't getting married at all. It's hard to get a divorce when you never got married in the first place.
It doesn't help that most American women are obese.
And those people you know are just as right as you are, maybe more so, maybe less. You don't know. Their opinion is perfectly valid, just as much as yours.
If they tried to claim Trump was a great, ethical person, then sure you could claim they're obviously wrong, but they're not claiming that at all. They're acknowledging that he's terrible, but in their judgment Hillary is even more terrible, and you have no way of proving that. (No, Politifact is not an unbiased source or a way of proving who's a bigger liar.)
Not voting for either of them is certainly a valid approach, and the one I intend to take too, but given that due to Duverger's Law either Hillary or Trump is almost certain to win, you can't fault those people for wanting to prevent who they see as the worse candidate from winning.
Personally, I'm leaning towards preferring Trump, for many reasons all related to Hillary (1. she wants to start more wars, 2. I don't want to reward her and the DNC for their obvious rigging, 3. she's a criminal who can't be prosecuted for the email fiasco because she's too powerful), but he's so awful I don't think I can bring myself to vote for him either, so I plan to vote for Stein. I'm still not convinced that Trump is actually genuine here; it still looks possible that he's only there to destroy the RNC from within and give Hillary the election.