First, implying that you can't make a profit by working for or contracting for the government is... I don't know... Fuckwitted? Consider if you will the "military industrial complex"... or the obviously endless series of businesses and contracts where in the government pays someone to do something and that someone makes a profit doing that.
Now... that silliness out of the way. Did you have parameters you would lead to your concession on this point or am I correct that spending my valuable time to find something you could find if you spent any effort on the matter would be a waste of my time?
You asked for evidence. I counter challenged by asking what you would accept. If you do not meet that challenge your information challenge fails and I will ignore it.
I'm very skeptical of requests for information from ACs on Slashdot because it tends to be followed by ENDLESS goalpost moving if I should actually provide the evidence.
Most ACs when asked what they would accept get very vague or change the subject. This leads me to believe that they were intending to goalpost move and my request for specific qualified information made them uncomfortable.
I do not cite this to you to say that I "know" you were going to do that. Merely that I must protect myself from this possibility by requesting elements of the type of information you would accept so that if I go to the effort to find the information you will either be forced to accept it or contradict yourself.
This is not meant as an insult to you, merely as what I see as a reasonable precaution to either stop people from jerking me around in topics or to filter out asshats.
I am almost positive you're not going to accept it which is fine... I don't really care. But if you want me to get some specific bit of magic bullet info... I want to know before hand that you'll concede the point if I do it.
Try to run competing cable. Right now. See if you can run cable between point A and point B and connect houses and businesses along that line.
You'll suddenly run into "problems"... mostly that they won't let you run it or more importantly connect houses to the line. Not unless you agree to a franchise agreement which will require you to do other fun things like provide internet service to the ENTIRE city.
That's a bit like saying if I want to open ONE sandwich shop for ONE neighborhood... I have to open up hundreds so the whole city can get it. This puts any sort of franchise agreement out of the means of anything but a major corporation.
And even then there are other elements and they add up to a giant "go fuck yourself with a rake sideways".
So no. Anyone cannot run cable. Unless what you mean is that anyone can run cable if they can agree to and comply with a franchise agreement designed to lock them out of the market.
And even if they could... we've seen Google and a few other ISPs have serious trouble actually getting cities to issue franchise licenses EVEN if they are willing to comply.
Its a shitshow and anyone that knows anything about the issue already knows that.
Allow anyone to run competing cable so long as they obey some simple rules... just like driving etc... and the cable companies won't be able to dick with people.
offer them state backed monopolies and they'll fuck you. Every fucking time.
there is no reason why if I'm reasonable about it, that I shouldn't be able to run a fiber optic cable from my home to the trunk... and I wanted to stop off at every house between myself and the trunk and link up that house to my line... I still don't see the problem if every one of those houses wants to be linked to my line.
I could literally offer everyone along the way, high speed internet for peanuts. And as to obtaining "TV" from that... pretty fucking easy to throw the 20 TV stations someone might care about into a fiber cable.
If a jackhole like me could do it... as in I could do without a learning curve... then a mom and pop ISP could do it too.
But no... as usual. give it to a monopoly and then wait for them to fuck you.
Not really. Cite something she's accomplished that make her at all worth referencing in that context?
Cite something. No sources required. Just tell me something she's accomplished. Senators, governors, and professional advocates have stuttered when asked that question and gone blank.
So why don't you google some talking points from your favorite mind rape site and tell me what she's accomplished. I'd love to hear you even try.
Nice try... claiming that the Dems don't run heavily on rhetoric and have done so for... always is frankly not credible.
As to trump being shit... all things are relative... is he more shit than hillary? I think you're going to find that tougher sell than you're going to believe.
As to the Reps generally fucking their voters over, yep... both parties do it to their voters. Look at what the Dems have done to the black communities across the country. The only difference is that the Rep voters are tired of it. So there's an insurrection. We'll see where it goes.
As to not articulating alternatives, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la la la" at the top of your voice doesn't mean the opposition didn't say anything or offer a counter example. It means merely that you were deliberately not listening.
As to her not needing to do the only thing she knows and is capable of doing... its less a matter of need then a manifest inability to do anything else. Everyone is aware of how Hillary interacts and campaigns etc... we've seen it for years. Saying she's going to suddenly do everything differently than she has in the past is not credible.
As to Trump surviving things that kill most other politicians... that is I think what his supporters are counting upon. If he keeps being able to do that then the Dems are fucked. Because that is their only real weapon here. Its just going to be a character assassination campaign. And if Trump proves immune to that as he has in the GOP nomination process then... the dems are fucked. That's all they've got.
As to Dan Quayle, sure... and his name is Rubio. We saw him eat it in the last debate against Christie... that was your Dan Quayle moment... he was the last Establishment pick after Jeb finally had the grace to die. And Rubio imploded almost immediately. Which means we've got nothing left but outsiders on our ticket. Dan wasn't an outsider.
Its going to be Republican wild card versus boiled gray cabbage Hillary. You might win... but expecting everything to go in a predictable manner with so many unpredictable elements in play is merely a conceit on your part.
First off, all AC=same guy in my conversations. I can't tell you fucks apart so this "Oh that wasn't me" stuff is pointless. Use names and login or I'm going to see you as the same person.
Second, I asked what you'd accept as evidence. You offered a study that cited Global Climate Change as the biggest threat to the United States of America. Which is idiotic.
What more I looked at that study further and you can see that they're not actually experts because most of the "best" are very recent. This is more likely the result of "people" not scholars being more familiar with recent events and not especially familiar with past events. Thus this isn't really a best of all time so much as best of what some college students were recently taught. And that's not really very authoritative.
Which comes to my original challenge which you have not yet offered. Since you want a source or a citation... I want to know what you'd accept.
See, I don't think that's actually a very useful benchmark. Because after all I doubt very much that either of us is going to change our opinions based on something we see like that.
So why don't we do something more productive... why don't you tell me what she's done that you think was so very effective? Give me an example of something. I don't need citations. Just reference something... say "she handled this thing or that thing really well" and we can talk about that. Short of that, I think we both know this isn't going to go anywhere.
The reality is this... she actually isn't well regarded. She is however very well politically connected. A trained seal can get media outlets to say nice things about them if they're well connected.
What are you going to cite as her big accomplishments? Syria? Libya? Russia? China? She's either done nothing or fucked the pooch pretty much across the board. So citing her as the "best" is frankly laughable. But if you have something you'd like to offer as a counter example... go for it. I suspect it is actually YOU that has nothing.
Your study ranked "climate change" as the most pressing international issue. That generally makes your citation laughable.
Anyway, what would you accept as evidence? You said here that you won't accept biased sources. Okay... but what sort of study or statement or whatever would you accept?
Any politician wins because they have followers. So that statement is null.
As to how he's going to follow through on his promises... he actually has released quiet a few things. He released a detailed tax plan, he explained how he was going to build the fucking wall, and a few other things. So... perhaps your opinion is out of date? Or more likely you never actually checked.
Cruz is not getting branded as too establishment... which is not to say that any given idiot might not say that... its just not a relevant issue. Cruz's issue is that he's actually too hard line conservative. A lot of what Trump has going for him is that he's pulling moderates and even democrats to his side. And that is something Cruz can't do. What is more, Cruz is known to be a very very hard liner. Where as Trump is thought to be able to compromise. And that is pulling more establishment support to Trump because Cruz won't negotiate with the establishment and it is believed that Trump will. You really haven't been paying any attention to this issue... no offense.
As to the media paying for the Trump Campaign... oh please, how much air time does Trump get and how much of that does he pay for? The media is paying for his campaign. Anyone can see that.
No, she doesn't get things done. Go through her history. She went home early while her diplomats were being killed. Anyone that "got things done" would have spent all night trying to save their people. She didn't even care enough to keep her chair warm much less lift a fucking finger to anything about it.
I know I know... You're going to against tell me she gets things done... well, "what" she's done has been asked of experts, advocates, and her many supporters... and generally what happens when people like you are asked point blank what she's done... deer in the fucking headlights.
So lets try that right here and now. What has she done? Something specific please that she actually did?
You're just victim blaming now... which is fine. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it. The wind is blowing against you on the PC shit at this point. That's the problem with making your entire political strategy sophistry. Everything becomes rhetoric. And when someone contends with you that actually understands that nothing you're saying has any meaning and its all about shit talking to win votes... then the whole thing collapses.
As to my example... I didn't have just one... And no example is going to be accepted by you in any case so it doesn't especially matter. The point is that you're losing the cultural argument and politics is downstream from culture. You're married to a strategy that relies on identity politics, sophistry, and arbitrary PC bullshit to survive. And the problem you're going to start running into increasingly is that the identity politics and sophistry have become so typical that no one is even trying to have real discussions any more. Its all power politics. That negates most of the power of doing that. And then to make things worse, your PC framework is being challenged pretty much at every level of our culture.
As to her "master plan"... I think you're confusing the fact that she's an empty pants suit with some sort of stratagem. Its like saying part of a flightless bird's strategy is to not fly... it has no ability to fly so any plan it makes obviously will preclude flying.
As to blow hards and what is going on... the GOP has been in open revolt for years. As I said, the GOP establishment is dramatically weaker than the DNC because there has not been a rebellion amongst the democrats.
The republicans lost two presidential elections and then even when the voters got majorities in congress all they've done is basically rubber stamp Obama... And all that happens while saying they won't do that and saying they won't do things they ultimately do... its gotten toxic.
Once you understand how absolutely fed up and furious the republicans are with their leadership, you'll understand trump better... he's an emetic. The GOP has been dry heaving for years. Since before Bush 43. And Trump is a desperate attempt to finally cough up the crap lodged in our throats or kill the party and remake it.
So your argument for Hillary is her Sec State experience? She's widely regarded to have been one of the worst Sec States we've ever had. I don't see how you can use that.
What is more, while Trump obviously is throwing around a lot of platitudes, suggesting that he is less informed than Hillary is difficult. Remember, Hillary is the one that was pushing the notion that the attack on our embassy during the anniversary of 9/11 was due to a you tube video that was posted on line a year prior. That's fucking stupid. Everyone knew it was fucking stupid about five seconds after they said it. You know it is fucking stupid. I know it is fucking stupid. I'm not going to play pretend with you here.
No, if being a woman were a selling point then people would be just as happy to have Sarah Palin or something... having a vagina is dramatically over rated in politics even among the progressives.
Here is what matters to the DNC.
1. What is left of the Clinton dynasty has been building up to this moment like fucking marvel with their avengers bullshit. They have put all their eggs in this basket. They're already preparing their stupid daughter to be in politics... she's getting tit for tat jobs from various clinton allies and is beings streamlined into a major political career.
2. She's a reliable machine politician Democrat that the entire establishment can comfortably get behind because she's a cog in the machine. She's not going to rock the boat. She's not going to shit in the DNC apple pie. She's not going change anything or out people that are fucking over people or anything. She's just going to sit in that seat, smile, and wave.
3. Obama has basically backed her which means the Clintons, the DNC machine, and the Obama administration have backed her... It is assumed that he's backing her because she will effectively run as a third term Obama from a policy stand point. So if you've liked the last 8 years... go vote for Hillary and get four more.
Her vagina in this context is irrelevant.
Bernie to the contrary has no dynasty behind him much less the obama administration. And the DNC machine doesn't like or trust him because he's basically a crypto communist and he's very likely go after DNC funders, lobbyists and backers. The machine doesn't like that so they're going to cut his legs off.
When push comes to shove... that's all that matters in this primary for the DNC. The DNC is DRAMATICALLY more powerful in its party than is the GOP version. Years of infighting, the tea party, etc have dramatically weakened the GOP establishment and that is before you consider that the GOP never had as much power over who was nominated as the DNC. The DNC has been investing in machine politics for generations and its a very very very powerful organization at this point. You cannot get nominated as a democrat without the backing of the machine. Not possible. Between the systematic control over the polling stations, the systematic control over the intelligence on the ground, the systematic control over the funding, and the systematic control over the super delegates etc... you're not going anywhere without the backing of the machine.
The machine backs hillary, the clintons back hillary, obama backs hillary... Bernie should just give up. He's wasting his time.
As to normal people... she's hardly that. She's basically convinced herself that she's American royalty/nobility at this point. So nope.
As to Trump being smart... if he's so dumb then why is he mollywopping anyone that tries to mess with him? People on BOTH sides keep trying to take him down and they keep failing. He is single handedly going through the GOP like Godzillia.... and the other side is basically against their will funding his campaign.
You know how he keeps throwing out that "and the mexicans will pay for it" thing about the wall? Well... he's running the most successful campaign in the country right now... and the MEDIA is paying for it.
Of course I'm voting. I've voted in every election since I reached adulthood.
I've voted for both political parties as well if you're at all curious.
Hillary however is as I said... an empty pants suit... her credibility and trustworthiness is generally regarded to be low if you look at the polling data.
The democrats are as usual looking to run an identity politics campaign focused on ad hominem attacks. Trump naturally has encouraged them to do this... the problem with that and the dems don't seem to grasp this... is this is a trap.
First, Hillary is not a good platform from which to launch ad hominem attacks. She's very much a glass house when it comes to these things... the casting of stones from such places is basically discouraged in the textbook.
Second, Trump LOVES getting hit with ad hominem attacks... I don't think any of us have ever seen anyone that actually deals with them better than him. Its fucking astounding how he just shrugs them off, turns insults into compliments, reverses them on the accuser, or simply dodges the statement and makes his own that is more cutting than the last one.
Third, the progressives in general have dramatically over played their Political Correctness hand. They're pissing people off not just in the US but throughout the Western world with this crap lately. South Park is making fun of it. Social media is making fun of it. The comedy circuit is actually not making fun of it... they're getting serious and saying its a fucking problem... and long story short, there is some backfire with all that crap. And Hillary's campaign is going to be FULL of "progressive stack" bullshit. We both know that. This means the dems are going to be using weapons that are going to be less effective in the coming political season than they have been in a generation. And they don't seem to have realized it.
Add it up. I have no doubt that Hillary will get 45 percent of the vote. Either party can count on that even if they run a trained seal. The question is who will get that critical 10 percent in the middle... and how much of it? All you need is 5.00001 percent and you're president.
Bernie is done... we saw that again tonight as I predicted.
In the Rep field we have Trump with a very distant Cruz. That's over too and the smart players going to start shifting with the blowing of the winds.
adjective 1.having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
2.Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:
Actually its pretty text book delusional to think you can jack up everyone's taxes and not depress the economy, lower the over all wealth of the society as economic activity decreases, and then sustain the whole system indefinitely whilst having open immigration.
Seriously... open immigration + comprehensive social welfare... do you seriously not see how those two things are not compatible or do you somehow think the US can provide high quality welfare to the entire planet's poor?
If you don't see how delusional this is then you're deluded.
If you like her policies... whatever those are... then fine. My point was that the attacks one way or the other will generally be ad hominem. And the problem for the democrats especially is that any ad hominem they throw at Trump is at best going to backfire as it can be shown that Hillary suffers from more extreme versions of the same thing.
Not really an impartial source, sport. If you want to talk about specific issues we can do that. But bullshit statistics from "I am right.com" will be treated like what they are.
Hillary is neither evil nor a genius. She's a bland gray empty pants suit.
As to Trump being stupid... he says stupid things but even his enemies generally admit that he's actually really clever. If you want to throw the evil genius title around you might throw it his way or put it back in the box.
As to applying it to Hillary... the silly woman has to be couched through every debate and interview. She's another teleprompter trained parrot politician. And you want to call her a "genius"...
the political process requires choices... there are rarely any ideals... its a choice between the different options.
At this point... its Hillery VS Trump... there is very little you could say against Trump that doesn't count many times over against Hillary.
Most of the negatives of either candidate fall away once you see that... then it becomes a question of the positives...
This cause big problems for Hillary because she actually doesn't have any besides being a democrat if that is a positive.
She's not especially clever. She's not especially wise. She's not especially respected or trusted. She's not well liked. She's not good at giving speeches. She's not good at leading people. She's not good at managing things.
There's nothing there. She's Bill Clinton's wife. That's what she's been running on from the beginning.
It was how she got her stint in the Senate. It was how she got treated seriously as a presidential candidate in 2008. It is how she got appointed to Sec State under Obama even though Obama didn't like or trust her.
And it is why she's basically being given the Democrat nomination. She won 6 out of 6 coin tosses and won 7 out of 7 high card draws. Consider the odds of that happening. (.5^13) x 100 = 0.01% chance of that happening.
The fix is in kids. The DNC machine has chosen Hillary. She has no reason to even be there in the first place and look at her walk to her coronation.
Against her... for some fucking reason... is Trump. And anything you can say against him is true many times over for her.
When all is said and done... the difference is this... he's smarter than she is, he has a proven track record of making things work out in his interests without someone doing it for him, he's respected within some fields for being a savvy business person, people seem to like him, he's very good at giving speeches, he obviously can claim some skill at running companies... say whatever you like about him... he's got more going for him than hillary besides the fact that she's a democrat and he's running as a republican.
That's pretty much the only thing you could cite as being a positive thing in her favor absent POLICY differences.
Now if you want to say "but I want the policies she's advocating and not the ones he's advocating" sure... that's a reasonable objection. However, that's a policy objection and not anything to do with the actual people.
The policies and the personalities should not be mixed. Say which personality you like... say which policies you like.. then vote for whomever on which ever basis you find relevant. But citing Hillary as being a better person is a very dubious sell.
I'm not a hypocrite if I use your argument against you to demonstrate its illogic.
I'm certainly not advocating that replying means anyone got to anyone. That is not MY argument. That was yours. I was merely showing that IF your argument were valid, and it is not, BUT if it were... then I got to you idiots more than you got to me.
And since what is relevant to you is this concept of "got to" which is no relevance to me... the argument has negative utility to you.
See, this is what sophists like YOU never get about stoics like ME. I don't care about winning or losing.
I care about being RIGHT.
This is in contrast to people like you... you care nothing for being right or accurate or rational or coherent. Your only objective is to win.
This tactic of yours works well against anyone BUT stoics. Because in being RIGHT, stoics tend to win without even trying to win. We are also utterly immune to your silly arguments.
The things you seek mean nothing to us. And any victory idiots like you try to claim from people like me will turn to ash in your mouth.
That is the nature of our philosophical difference. You cannot win because you spend no energy trying to be right. And as I spend ALL my energy trying to be right... I will be right and you will be wrong. And being right... I will win without trying and you will lose despite doing everything you can to win.
Allow me to channel the Cynic Diogenes to spit in your face (Diogenes did that. I know, how uncultured right? Your whole social pretense is of no meaning to me and is quite irrelevant to the discussion.).
Slashdot Mirror
First, implying that you can't make a profit by working for or contracting for the government is... I don't know... Fuckwitted? Consider if you will the "military industrial complex"... or the obviously endless series of businesses and contracts where in the government pays someone to do something and that someone makes a profit doing that.
Now... that silliness out of the way. Did you have parameters you would lead to your concession on this point or am I correct that spending my valuable time to find something you could find if you spent any effort on the matter would be a waste of my time?
You asked for evidence. I counter challenged by asking what you would accept. If you do not meet that challenge your information challenge fails and I will ignore it.
What would you accept as evidence?...
I'm very skeptical of requests for information from ACs on Slashdot because it tends to be followed by ENDLESS goalpost moving if I should actually provide the evidence.
Most ACs when asked what they would accept get very vague or change the subject. This leads me to believe that they were intending to goalpost move and my request for specific qualified information made them uncomfortable.
I do not cite this to you to say that I "know" you were going to do that. Merely that I must protect myself from this possibility by requesting elements of the type of information you would accept so that if I go to the effort to find the information you will either be forced to accept it or contradict yourself.
This is not meant as an insult to you, merely as what I see as a reasonable precaution to either stop people from jerking me around in topics or to filter out asshats.
Here is one link that popped up after about 2 seconds of internet searches...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
I am almost positive you're not going to accept it which is fine... I don't really care. But if you want me to get some specific bit of magic bullet info... I want to know before hand that you'll concede the point if I do it.
No you can't. Try it.
Try to run competing cable. Right now. See if you can run cable between point A and point B and connect houses and businesses along that line.
You'll suddenly run into "problems"... mostly that they won't let you run it or more importantly connect houses to the line. Not unless you agree to a franchise agreement which will require you to do other fun things like provide internet service to the ENTIRE city.
That's a bit like saying if I want to open ONE sandwich shop for ONE neighborhood... I have to open up hundreds so the whole city can get it. This puts any sort of franchise agreement out of the means of anything but a major corporation.
And even then there are other elements and they add up to a giant "go fuck yourself with a rake sideways".
So no. Anyone cannot run cable. Unless what you mean is that anyone can run cable if they can agree to and comply with a franchise agreement designed to lock them out of the market.
And even if they could... we've seen Google and a few other ISPs have serious trouble actually getting cities to issue franchise licenses EVEN if they are willing to comply.
Its a shitshow and anyone that knows anything about the issue already knows that.
Allow anyone to run competing cable so long as they obey some simple rules... just like driving etc... and the cable companies won't be able to dick with people.
offer them state backed monopolies and they'll fuck you. Every fucking time.
there is no reason why if I'm reasonable about it, that I shouldn't be able to run a fiber optic cable from my home to the trunk... and I wanted to stop off at every house between myself and the trunk and link up that house to my line... I still don't see the problem if every one of those houses wants to be linked to my line.
I could literally offer everyone along the way, high speed internet for peanuts. And as to obtaining "TV" from that... pretty fucking easy to throw the 20 TV stations someone might care about into a fiber cable.
If a jackhole like me could do it... as in I could do without a learning curve... then a mom and pop ISP could do it too.
But no... as usual. give it to a monopoly and then wait for them to fuck you.
Not really. Cite something she's accomplished that make her at all worth referencing in that context?
Cite something. No sources required. Just tell me something she's accomplished. Senators, governors, and professional advocates have stuttered when asked that question and gone blank.
So why don't you google some talking points from your favorite mind rape site and tell me what she's accomplished. I'd love to hear you even try.
Nice try... claiming that the Dems don't run heavily on rhetoric and have done so for... always is frankly not credible.
As to trump being shit... all things are relative... is he more shit than hillary? I think you're going to find that tougher sell than you're going to believe.
As to the Reps generally fucking their voters over, yep... both parties do it to their voters. Look at what the Dems have done to the black communities across the country. The only difference is that the Rep voters are tired of it. So there's an insurrection. We'll see where it goes.
As to not articulating alternatives, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la la la" at the top of your voice doesn't mean the opposition didn't say anything or offer a counter example. It means merely that you were deliberately not listening.
As to her not needing to do the only thing she knows and is capable of doing... its less a matter of need then a manifest inability to do anything else. Everyone is aware of how Hillary interacts and campaigns etc... we've seen it for years. Saying she's going to suddenly do everything differently than she has in the past is not credible.
As to Trump surviving things that kill most other politicians... that is I think what his supporters are counting upon. If he keeps being able to do that then the Dems are fucked. Because that is their only real weapon here. Its just going to be a character assassination campaign. And if Trump proves immune to that as he has in the GOP nomination process then... the dems are fucked. That's all they've got.
As to Dan Quayle, sure... and his name is Rubio. We saw him eat it in the last debate against Christie... that was your Dan Quayle moment... he was the last Establishment pick after Jeb finally had the grace to die. And Rubio imploded almost immediately. Which means we've got nothing left but outsiders on our ticket. Dan wasn't an outsider.
Its going to be Republican wild card versus boiled gray cabbage Hillary. You might win... but expecting everything to go in a predictable manner with so many unpredictable elements in play is merely a conceit on your part.
First off, all AC=same guy in my conversations. I can't tell you fucks apart so this "Oh that wasn't me" stuff is pointless. Use names and login or I'm going to see you as the same person.
Second, I asked what you'd accept as evidence. You offered a study that cited Global Climate Change as the biggest threat to the United States of America. Which is idiotic.
What more I looked at that study further and you can see that they're not actually experts because most of the "best" are very recent. This is more likely the result of "people" not scholars being more familiar with recent events and not especially familiar with past events. Thus this isn't really a best of all time so much as best of what some college students were recently taught. And that's not really very authoritative.
Which comes to my original challenge which you have not yet offered. Since you want a source or a citation... I want to know what you'd accept.
See, I don't think that's actually a very useful benchmark. Because after all I doubt very much that either of us is going to change our opinions based on something we see like that.
So why don't we do something more productive... why don't you tell me what she's done that you think was so very effective? Give me an example of something. I don't need citations. Just reference something... say "she handled this thing or that thing really well" and we can talk about that. Short of that, I think we both know this isn't going to go anywhere.
The reality is this... she actually isn't well regarded. She is however very well politically connected. A trained seal can get media outlets to say nice things about them if they're well connected.
What are you going to cite as her big accomplishments? Syria? Libya? Russia? China? She's either done nothing or fucked the pooch pretty much across the board. So citing her as the "best" is frankly laughable. But if you have something you'd like to offer as a counter example... go for it. I suspect it is actually YOU that has nothing.
Your study ranked "climate change" as the most pressing international issue. That generally makes your citation laughable.
Anyway, what would you accept as evidence? You said here that you won't accept biased sources. Okay... but what sort of study or statement or whatever would you accept?
Any politician wins because they have followers. So that statement is null.
As to how he's going to follow through on his promises... he actually has released quiet a few things. He released a detailed tax plan, he explained how he was going to build the fucking wall, and a few other things. So... perhaps your opinion is out of date? Or more likely you never actually checked.
Cruz is not getting branded as too establishment... which is not to say that any given idiot might not say that... its just not a relevant issue. Cruz's issue is that he's actually too hard line conservative. A lot of what Trump has going for him is that he's pulling moderates and even democrats to his side. And that is something Cruz can't do. What is more, Cruz is known to be a very very hard liner. Where as Trump is thought to be able to compromise. And that is pulling more establishment support to Trump because Cruz won't negotiate with the establishment and it is believed that Trump will. You really haven't been paying any attention to this issue... no offense.
As to the media paying for the Trump Campaign... oh please, how much air time does Trump get and how much of that does he pay for? The media is paying for his campaign. Anyone can see that.
No, she doesn't get things done. Go through her history. She went home early while her diplomats were being killed. Anyone that "got things done" would have spent all night trying to save their people. She didn't even care enough to keep her chair warm much less lift a fucking finger to anything about it.
I know I know... You're going to against tell me she gets things done... well, "what" she's done has been asked of experts, advocates, and her many supporters... and generally what happens when people like you are asked point blank what she's done... deer in the fucking headlights.
So lets try that right here and now. What has she done? Something specific please that she actually did?
*gets popcorn*
sure, cite what you'd accept as a source and I'll provide it if it's reasonable.
You're just victim blaming now... which is fine. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it. The wind is blowing against you on the PC shit at this point. That's the problem with making your entire political strategy sophistry. Everything becomes rhetoric. And when someone contends with you that actually understands that nothing you're saying has any meaning and its all about shit talking to win votes... then the whole thing collapses.
As to my example... I didn't have just one... And no example is going to be accepted by you in any case so it doesn't especially matter. The point is that you're losing the cultural argument and politics is downstream from culture. You're married to a strategy that relies on identity politics, sophistry, and arbitrary PC bullshit to survive. And the problem you're going to start running into increasingly is that the identity politics and sophistry have become so typical that no one is even trying to have real discussions any more. Its all power politics. That negates most of the power of doing that. And then to make things worse, your PC framework is being challenged pretty much at every level of our culture.
As to her "master plan"... I think you're confusing the fact that she's an empty pants suit with some sort of stratagem. Its like saying part of a flightless bird's strategy is to not fly... it has no ability to fly so any plan it makes obviously will preclude flying.
As to blow hards and what is going on... the GOP has been in open revolt for years. As I said, the GOP establishment is dramatically weaker than the DNC because there has not been a rebellion amongst the democrats.
The republicans lost two presidential elections and then even when the voters got majorities in congress all they've done is basically rubber stamp Obama... And all that happens while saying they won't do that and saying they won't do things they ultimately do... its gotten toxic.
Once you understand how absolutely fed up and furious the republicans are with their leadership, you'll understand trump better... he's an emetic. The GOP has been dry heaving for years. Since before Bush 43. And Trump is a desperate attempt to finally cough up the crap lodged in our throats or kill the party and remake it.
We live in interesting times. ;)
So your argument for Hillary is her Sec State experience? She's widely regarded to have been one of the worst Sec States we've ever had. I don't see how you can use that.
What is more, while Trump obviously is throwing around a lot of platitudes, suggesting that he is less informed than Hillary is difficult. Remember, Hillary is the one that was pushing the notion that the attack on our embassy during the anniversary of 9/11 was due to a you tube video that was posted on line a year prior. That's fucking stupid. Everyone knew it was fucking stupid about five seconds after they said it. You know it is fucking stupid. I know it is fucking stupid. I'm not going to play pretend with you here.
No, if being a woman were a selling point then people would be just as happy to have Sarah Palin or something... having a vagina is dramatically over rated in politics even among the progressives.
Here is what matters to the DNC.
1. What is left of the Clinton dynasty has been building up to this moment like fucking marvel with their avengers bullshit. They have put all their eggs in this basket. They're already preparing their stupid daughter to be in politics... she's getting tit for tat jobs from various clinton allies and is beings streamlined into a major political career.
2. She's a reliable machine politician Democrat that the entire establishment can comfortably get behind because she's a cog in the machine. She's not going to rock the boat. She's not going to shit in the DNC apple pie. She's not going change anything or out people that are fucking over people or anything. She's just going to sit in that seat, smile, and wave.
3. Obama has basically backed her which means the Clintons, the DNC machine, and the Obama administration have backed her... It is assumed that he's backing her because she will effectively run as a third term Obama from a policy stand point. So if you've liked the last 8 years... go vote for Hillary and get four more.
Her vagina in this context is irrelevant.
Bernie to the contrary has no dynasty behind him much less the obama administration. And the DNC machine doesn't like or trust him because he's basically a crypto communist and he's very likely go after DNC funders, lobbyists and backers. The machine doesn't like that so they're going to cut his legs off.
When push comes to shove... that's all that matters in this primary for the DNC. The DNC is DRAMATICALLY more powerful in its party than is the GOP version. Years of infighting, the tea party, etc have dramatically weakened the GOP establishment and that is before you consider that the GOP never had as much power over who was nominated as the DNC. The DNC has been investing in machine politics for generations and its a very very very powerful organization at this point. You cannot get nominated as a democrat without the backing of the machine. Not possible. Between the systematic control over the polling stations, the systematic control over the intelligence on the ground, the systematic control over the funding, and the systematic control over the super delegates etc... you're not going anywhere without the backing of the machine.
The machine backs hillary, the clintons back hillary, obama backs hillary... Bernie should just give up. He's wasting his time.
Doesn't matter... he won't be nominated.
As to normal people... she's hardly that. She's basically convinced herself that she's American royalty/nobility at this point. So nope.
As to Trump being smart... if he's so dumb then why is he mollywopping anyone that tries to mess with him? People on BOTH sides keep trying to take him down and they keep failing. He is single handedly going through the GOP like Godzillia.... and the other side is basically against their will funding his campaign.
You know how he keeps throwing out that "and the mexicans will pay for it" thing about the wall? Well... he's running the most successful campaign in the country right now... and the MEDIA is paying for it.
Of course I'm voting. I've voted in every election since I reached adulthood.
I've voted for both political parties as well if you're at all curious.
Hillary however is as I said... an empty pants suit... her credibility and trustworthiness is generally regarded to be low if you look at the polling data.
The democrats are as usual looking to run an identity politics campaign focused on ad hominem attacks. Trump naturally has encouraged them to do this... the problem with that and the dems don't seem to grasp this... is this is a trap.
First, Hillary is not a good platform from which to launch ad hominem attacks. She's very much a glass house when it comes to these things... the casting of stones from such places is basically discouraged in the textbook.
Second, Trump LOVES getting hit with ad hominem attacks... I don't think any of us have ever seen anyone that actually deals with them better than him. Its fucking astounding how he just shrugs them off, turns insults into compliments, reverses them on the accuser, or simply dodges the statement and makes his own that is more cutting than the last one.
Third, the progressives in general have dramatically over played their Political Correctness hand. They're pissing people off not just in the US but throughout the Western world with this crap lately. South Park is making fun of it. Social media is making fun of it. The comedy circuit is actually not making fun of it... they're getting serious and saying its a fucking problem... and long story short, there is some backfire with all that crap. And Hillary's campaign is going to be FULL of "progressive stack" bullshit. We both know that. This means the dems are going to be using weapons that are going to be less effective in the coming political season than they have been in a generation. And they don't seem to have realized it.
Add it up. I have no doubt that Hillary will get 45 percent of the vote. Either party can count on that even if they run a trained seal. The question is who will get that critical 10 percent in the middle... and how much of it? All you need is 5.00001 percent and you're president.
Bernie is done... we saw that again tonight as I predicted.
In the Rep field we have Trump with a very distant Cruz. That's over too and the smart players going to start shifting with the blowing of the winds.
delusional
[dih-loo-zhuh-nl]
adjective
1.having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
2.Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:
Actually its pretty text book delusional to think you can jack up everyone's taxes and not depress the economy, lower the over all wealth of the society as economic activity decreases, and then sustain the whole system indefinitely whilst having open immigration.
Seriously... open immigration + comprehensive social welfare... do you seriously not see how those two things are not compatible or do you somehow think the US can provide high quality welfare to the entire planet's poor?
If you don't see how delusional this is then you're deluded.
sure sure... and the super delegate thing is not going to bias the whole thing either.
Look, I don't care if you want to save face here. It really doesn't matter to me. The point is that Bernie has no chance.
Its Hillary for the Dem nomination period.
And that means we're looking at Hillary VS Trump.
If you like her policies... whatever those are... then fine. My point was that the attacks one way or the other will generally be ad hominem. And the problem for the democrats especially is that any ad hominem they throw at Trump is at best going to backfire as it can be shown that Hillary suffers from more extreme versions of the same thing.
Not really an impartial source, sport. If you want to talk about specific issues we can do that. But bullshit statistics from "I am right.com" will be treated like what they are.
Hillary is neither evil nor a genius. She's a bland gray empty pants suit.
As to Trump being stupid... he says stupid things but even his enemies generally admit that he's actually really clever. If you want to throw the evil genius title around you might throw it his way or put it back in the box.
As to applying it to Hillary... the silly woman has to be couched through every debate and interview. She's another teleprompter trained parrot politician. And you want to call her a "genius"...
Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?
Bernie won't be nominated. The DNC machine has chosen Hillary. Your vote is irrelevant.
the political process requires choices... there are rarely any ideals... its a choice between the different options.
At this point... its Hillery VS Trump... there is very little you could say against Trump that doesn't count many times over against Hillary.
Most of the negatives of either candidate fall away once you see that... then it becomes a question of the positives...
This cause big problems for Hillary because she actually doesn't have any besides being a democrat if that is a positive.
She's not especially clever. She's not especially wise. She's not especially respected or trusted. She's not well liked. She's not good at giving speeches. She's not good at leading people. She's not good at managing things.
There's nothing there. She's Bill Clinton's wife. That's what she's been running on from the beginning.
It was how she got her stint in the Senate.
It was how she got treated seriously as a presidential candidate in 2008.
It is how she got appointed to Sec State under Obama even though Obama didn't like or trust her.
And it is why she's basically being given the Democrat nomination. She won 6 out of 6 coin tosses and won 7 out of 7 high card draws. Consider the odds of that happening.
(.5^13) x 100 = 0.01% chance of that happening.
The fix is in kids. The DNC machine has chosen Hillary. She has no reason to even be there in the first place and look at her walk to her coronation.
Against her... for some fucking reason... is Trump. And anything you can say against him is true many times over for her.
When all is said and done... the difference is this... he's smarter than she is, he has a proven track record of making things work out in his interests without someone doing it for him, he's respected within some fields for being a savvy business person, people seem to like him, he's very good at giving speeches, he obviously can claim some skill at running companies... say whatever you like about him... he's got more going for him than hillary besides the fact that she's a democrat and he's running as a republican.
That's pretty much the only thing you could cite as being a positive thing in her favor absent POLICY differences.
Now if you want to say "but I want the policies she's advocating and not the ones he's advocating" sure... that's a reasonable objection. However, that's a policy objection and not anything to do with the actual people.
The policies and the personalities should not be mixed. Say which personality you like... say which policies you like.. then vote for whomever on which ever basis you find relevant. But citing Hillary as being a better person is a very dubious sell.
I'm not a hypocrite if I use your argument against you to demonstrate its illogic.
I'm certainly not advocating that replying means anyone got to anyone. That is not MY argument. That was yours. I was merely showing that IF your argument were valid, and it is not, BUT if it were... then I got to you idiots more than you got to me.
And since what is relevant to you is this concept of "got to" which is no relevance to me... the argument has negative utility to you.
See, this is what sophists like YOU never get about stoics like ME. I don't care about winning or losing.
I care about being RIGHT.
This is in contrast to people like you... you care nothing for being right or accurate or rational or coherent. Your only objective is to win.
This tactic of yours works well against anyone BUT stoics. Because in being RIGHT, stoics tend to win without even trying to win. We are also utterly immune to your silly arguments.
The things you seek mean nothing to us. And any victory idiots like you try to claim from people like me will turn to ash in your mouth.
That is the nature of our philosophical difference. You cannot win because you spend no energy trying to be right. And as I spend ALL my energy trying to be right... I will be right and you will be wrong. And being right... I will win without trying and you will lose despite doing everything you can to win.
Allow me to channel the Cynic Diogenes to spit in your face (Diogenes did that. I know, how uncultured right? Your whole social pretense is of no meaning to me and is quite irrelevant to the discussion.).
Good day, sir.