Do you think he wants to do something about illegal immigration? I think he does and I think he is being honest about it. Do you think he wants better trade deals for America? I think he does and I think he is being honest about it. Agree or not doesn't really change that it is easy to see that he is being honest about many of the policies he wants. Whether that is good or not is debatable. Clinton on the other hand... Who knows what she wants, only the ones that pay her know that.
If Trump is elected with a Republican congress, that does not mean that they 'won't have the courage to provide any meaningful resistance to his schemes'. I think he will be stone walled by congress and that is actually a good reason to elect him. Same with the media. Do you think the media darling of Clinton will be forthright in reporting corruption and scandals of a Clinton administration compared a Trump administration? Trump is hated by GOP and democrat alike, why would GOP in congress work with him? As we have heard in this thread, Clinton can get things done. She will make enough deals and curry favors that any congress will be bought and paid for while the media laps up another Nobel Peace prize for a war monger. While a Trump presidency will be hated by mainstream media and political establishment that he would be a lame duck.
Yea, I agree almost five thousand nukes on hand isn't a great idea but if you are going to have them at least have the infrastructure, training, and man power to manage them in a safe manner. For example, I remember seeing (don't remember where) one of the missile silos had a broken blast door that was held open with a hammer. There are a few other examples that I am too lazy to remember or search.
Hey, those middle class Americans will be training the H1-B visas before they are replaced for a generous severance package. Of course it is good for the American middle class. How else will they get that 'generous severance package'?
Hooray! An effective president at going to war! At empowering Walll Street! At colluding with big business! At conspiring against open and fair elections! At being above the law! Who needs a president that is constrained by law when we can have an effective leader that 'gets business done'?
The sad irony is that we know his views and we think he is going to do them or at least try to do them ergo he is honest with his platform. With Clinton, we heard her views but there is no expectation that the views she holds after the election will be the same. We know she is a liar that changes tune as soon as a different group show up or if you have the right connections and money.
If you are saying this without sarcasm you are an idiot. Agree/disagree with Wikileaks all you want but at least know what the organization is about.
WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses.
IOW, they specialize in government dealings because that is what is 'censored or otherwise restricted official materials'.
The difference is that if you have dirt on Trump any media source will publish it and you won't need protection from the government. If you leak government secrets you either get jailed, holed up in Russia, or worse. The point of Wikileaks is to protect the leakers from the government you mongoloid.
There are plenty of other news organizations that are digging up dirt on Trump. Or did you forget getting grabbed by the pussy? Or did you forget the X million of dollars losses in a tax return leak? Or did you forget the lawsuits of Trump University?
FFS. Apologetic shills just get to me in the morning before I have had my coffee.
Individuals can have preference. Organizations with fiduciary responsibilities cannot. Also, the DNC did more than just have a 'preference' they conspired and acted against Sanders in an unfair and in some instances illegal way . Do you think organizing and training violent protestors is just showing 'preference'? Do you think busing repeat voters to different polling booths is showing only 'preference'?
Those actions from institutions from the DNC do more to undermine democracy in this country than Trump calling them out for that behavior.
Yea, just like the Primaries with Sanders... Oh. wait. Ok, just because the conspiracies against Sanders during the primary was proven true doesn't mean that the DNC or Clinton campaign would do the same unethical tactics in the general...
Show me the tiniest bit of evidence of paid Trump shills.
Isn't it obvious? The evidence is your post. Now you may say that your post doesn't 'prove' anything but let's be honest; no one really supports Trump except for paid shills and actors. I have no evidence for this except that lots of people don't like Trump. Not mentioning the posts I have read that correct the record from misinformation spewed out by biased places like Wikileaks, the FBI, and FOIA requests. Clinton has fact checkers that remove the spin put out by evil republicans and evil Hitler 2.0.
The republicans want to kill you and your family and want to start WW3. Hillary is the answer to every problem you have. If you disagree obviously you are being paid off because no one wants WW3.
Well. Well. Speak of the devil. You got a lot of questions to answer in this thread buddy. And don't give me that "oh, I am not the Ecuador TFA was talking about. I'm the innocent Ecuador! Promise!" we've heard that excuse before.
Proven conspiracies against Sanders by the DNC do more to undermine the elections than Trump saying as much. Actions are more powerful than words.
Saying that everyone follows the same rules and laws is a good thing. There are a lot of people convinced that Clinton broke the law and there is evidence for some of those claims. The FBI using weasel words to forgo indictment does not undermine the evidence and the trend of dual meaning of the law for little people.
People are angry and when it comes to Clinton she operates above the law. If you thought that corruption was destroying the nation and words fail what would you do? There are crazies on both sides. Don't conflate the crazies itching for violence with legitimate 2nd amendment supporters. Actions speak louder than words and we have seen more bullying and violence from the left this election cycle.
I have seen more violence supported by the left this election cycle.
I have seen more statements taken out of context to fit the narrative of "Trump is HItler" from the left.
I have seen more apologetic antics from the media to the left.
I have seen more thuggish behavior from the left.
I don't like Trump but this election season has been plagued with undemocratic thugs that shut down opposition spawned mostly from the left.
Forgive me if I don't see statements taken out of context or hyperbolic virtue signaling on the same level as BLM, DNC corruption, Clinton Foundation and Foreign money influence, election tampering, Pay-to-Play politics, violent protests against political opponents rallies, and igniting the Red Scare 2.0 to brush away outed corruption that we have seen instigated by the left for Clinton.
The left promotes diversity except when it is a political opinion then they will shut you down will bully tactics and paid thugs. This election Hillary and the left are illiberal POS and a vote for her is a vote for bully tactics, paid thugs, and illiberal government.
The constitution does nothing to punish populism as long as that populism is sufficiently broad based, attractive to all of the country, not just some regions.
This. The EC is more about ensuring that a president is elected on broad nation support more than just popular because of the issues of population densities skewing trends. It was designed to give smaller states more say in presidential elections. It really is just like the bicameral congress except it is for POTUS elections. Each congressional chamber represents the states in a different way; Popular and as a whole. The EC is a mix of these to guarantee that any president will have broad national support and broad popular support (exceptions apply albeit rare).
You don't want a president elected by the few very heavily populated cities just like you don't want a president elected on many small dispersed towns. You want a president elected by a broad support of states and people.
The executive (i.e. Obama) is telling the different parts of government to implement the strategy. It coordinates the different parts of the government on which parts should do which things. They already have the budget and legal authority to do the things, but it requires coordination. Which is exactly what a chief executive should be doing.
The president directing the business and coordination of the executive bureaucracies and agencies sounds like commie talk to me. I think we need to look into your past history as a communist sympathizer.
The best government is an uncoordinated government. Small and uncoordinated are basically the same thing.
This has been my experience. I graduated from DeVry with a degree with a similar GPA. I enrolled in 2005 right about the time the deregulation of the student loan industry occurred. I don't remember hearing anything bad about private colleges or how bad student loans were. I was out of high school and I didn't expect to go to college in the first place.
After some work experience it never became a topic of conversation for any prospective job. No one cared about where I got a piece of paper. What was a concern was whether I could do the job and fit in with the company. That first job was probably luck but it was the reason I haven't had issues with finding a job.
Fast forward and I have taken various other courses at public universities and my wife is currently getting her B.S. in Biology from a state university. She tells me her experiences which mimicked mine; it is hit or miss on the teacher and class. Some are great. Some are awful.
This isn't an apology to those institutions. It is the experience I have had with private colleges and state universities.
"slander and inciting harassment" is now free speech?
You should have made the argument that being put on a ban list is not "slander or inciting harassment". You didn't. Instead you tried argue that taking proper legal actions to protect the reputation of oneself is the same as using the law to suppress ideas.
Did I get that right? What part of slander or libel should be legal in your eyes?
Here is an example: "XXongo is a child rapist." A statement that can and has ruined lives with just the accusation. If you take legal action to protect your reputation you are now using the legal system to suppress my freedom of speech because you didn't like what I said.
Sure, those websites/companies can ban comments/commenters that are racist or w/e but then they don't "have a culture of free speech" like TFA is saying.
Kind of hard to say "we have a culture of free speech and love free expression so much except when we don't like what you say." with a straight face.
Just like the government, there are acceptable limitations that could be put in placed (doxxing, threats, etc) but that is not what we are talking about, are we.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably he was very attractive, and had a lot of stamina.
I hope this answers your questions.
It does not answer what you call a homosexual on roller-skates. Rolaids.
I'll see myself out now.
Do you think he wants to do something about illegal immigration? I think he does and I think he is being honest about it. Do you think he wants better trade deals for America? I think he does and I think he is being honest about it. Agree or not doesn't really change that it is easy to see that he is being honest about many of the policies he wants. Whether that is good or not is debatable. Clinton on the other hand... Who knows what she wants, only the ones that pay her know that.
If Trump is elected with a Republican congress, that does not mean that they 'won't have the courage to provide any meaningful resistance to his schemes'. I think he will be stone walled by congress and that is actually a good reason to elect him. Same with the media. Do you think the media darling of Clinton will be forthright in reporting corruption and scandals of a Clinton administration compared a Trump administration? Trump is hated by GOP and democrat alike, why would GOP in congress work with him? As we have heard in this thread, Clinton can get things done. She will make enough deals and curry favors that any congress will be bought and paid for while the media laps up another Nobel Peace prize for a war monger. While a Trump presidency will be hated by mainstream media and political establishment that he would be a lame duck.
wants to build a new generation of nuclear weapons
This one actually I don't mind because our infrastructure of nuclear arms is atrocious. It has been in disrepair for a long time now and even Obama has plans to modernize our nuclear weapons.
Yea, I agree almost five thousand nukes on hand isn't a great idea but if you are going to have them at least have the infrastructure, training, and man power to manage them in a safe manner. For example, I remember seeing (don't remember where) one of the missile silos had a broken blast door that was held open with a hammer. There are a few other examples that I am too lazy to remember or search.
Hey, those middle class Americans will be training the H1-B visas before they are replaced for a generous severance package. Of course it is good for the American middle class. How else will they get that 'generous severance package'?
Hooray! An effective president at going to war! At empowering Walll Street! At colluding with big business! At conspiring against open and fair elections! At being above the law! Who needs a president that is constrained by law when we can have an effective leader that 'gets business done'?
The sad irony is that we know his views and we think he is going to do them or at least try to do them ergo he is honest with his platform. With Clinton, we heard her views but there is no expectation that the views she holds after the election will be the same. We know she is a liar that changes tune as soon as a different group show up or if you have the right connections and money.
The problem with revolting is that, what ever comes after, there is no guarantee that it will be better. More often than not it is worse.
If you are saying this without sarcasm you are an idiot. Agree/disagree with Wikileaks all you want but at least know what the organization is about.
WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses.
IOW, they specialize in government dealings because that is what is 'censored or otherwise restricted official materials'.
The difference is that if you have dirt on Trump any media source will publish it and you won't need protection from the government. If you leak government secrets you either get jailed, holed up in Russia, or worse. The point of Wikileaks is to protect the leakers from the government you mongoloid.
There are plenty of other news organizations that are digging up dirt on Trump. Or did you forget getting grabbed by the pussy? Or did you forget the X million of dollars losses in a tax return leak? Or did you forget the lawsuits of Trump University?
FFS. Apologetic shills just get to me in the morning before I have had my coffee.
Disney Evil.
Individuals can have preference. Organizations with fiduciary responsibilities cannot. Also, the DNC did more than just have a 'preference' they conspired and acted against Sanders in an unfair and in some instances illegal way . Do you think organizing and training violent protestors is just showing 'preference'? Do you think busing repeat voters to different polling booths is showing only 'preference'?
Those actions from institutions from the DNC do more to undermine democracy in this country than Trump calling them out for that behavior.
The election is not rigged against the Donald.
Yea, just like the Primaries with Sanders... Oh. wait. Ok, just because the conspiracies against Sanders during the primary was proven true doesn't mean that the DNC or Clinton campaign would do the same unethical tactics in the general...
You are a fool.
Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.
Show me the tiniest bit of evidence of paid Trump shills.
Isn't it obvious? The evidence is your post. Now you may say that your post doesn't 'prove' anything but let's be honest; no one really supports Trump except for paid shills and actors. I have no evidence for this except that lots of people don't like Trump. Not mentioning the posts I have read that correct the record from misinformation spewed out by biased places like Wikileaks, the FBI, and FOIA requests. Clinton has fact checkers that remove the spin put out by evil republicans and evil Hitler 2.0.
The republicans want to kill you and your family and want to start WW3. Hillary is the answer to every problem you have. If you disagree obviously you are being paid off because no one wants WW3.
Well. Well. Speak of the devil. You got a lot of questions to answer in this thread buddy. And don't give me that "oh, I am not the Ecuador TFA was talking about. I'm the innocent Ecuador! Promise!" we've heard that excuse before.
Proven conspiracies against Sanders by the DNC do more to undermine the elections than Trump saying as much. Actions are more powerful than words.
Saying that everyone follows the same rules and laws is a good thing. There are a lot of people convinced that Clinton broke the law and there is evidence for some of those claims. The FBI using weasel words to forgo indictment does not undermine the evidence and the trend of dual meaning of the law for little people.
People are angry and when it comes to Clinton she operates above the law. If you thought that corruption was destroying the nation and words fail what would you do? There are crazies on both sides. Don't conflate the crazies itching for violence with legitimate 2nd amendment supporters. Actions speak louder than words and we have seen more bullying and violence from the left this election cycle.
Oh, I thought we had shills from Correcting the Record in online discussions. Where is the Trump equivalent?
I have seen more violence supported by the left this election cycle.
I have seen more statements taken out of context to fit the narrative of "Trump is HItler" from the left.
I have seen more apologetic antics from the media to the left.
I have seen more thuggish behavior from the left.
I don't like Trump but this election season has been plagued with undemocratic thugs that shut down opposition spawned mostly from the left.
Forgive me if I don't see statements taken out of context or hyperbolic virtue signaling on the same level as BLM, DNC corruption, Clinton Foundation and Foreign money influence, election tampering, Pay-to-Play politics, violent protests against political opponents rallies, and igniting the Red Scare 2.0 to brush away outed corruption that we have seen instigated by the left for Clinton.
The left promotes diversity except when it is a political opinion then they will shut you down will bully tactics and paid thugs. This election Hillary and the left are illiberal POS and a vote for her is a vote for bully tactics, paid thugs, and illiberal government.
The constitution does nothing to punish populism as long as that populism is sufficiently broad based, attractive to all of the country, not just some regions.
This. The EC is more about ensuring that a president is elected on broad nation support more than just popular because of the issues of population densities skewing trends. It was designed to give smaller states more say in presidential elections. It really is just like the bicameral congress except it is for POTUS elections. Each congressional chamber represents the states in a different way; Popular and as a whole. The EC is a mix of these to guarantee that any president will have broad national support and broad popular support (exceptions apply albeit rare).
You don't want a president elected by the few very heavily populated cities just like you don't want a president elected on many small dispersed towns. You want a president elected by a broad support of states and people.
The executive (i.e. Obama) is telling the different parts of government to implement the strategy. It coordinates the different parts of the government on which parts should do which things. They already have the budget and legal authority to do the things, but it requires coordination. Which is exactly what a chief executive should be doing.
The president directing the business and coordination of the executive bureaucracies and agencies sounds like commie talk to me. I think we need to look into your past history as a communist sympathizer.
The best government is an uncoordinated government. Small and uncoordinated are basically the same thing.
Not to disparage your advice but nothing is ever that simple. That advice doesn't always help.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...
Squirrel: But Why didn't you save some money for the future, when times were good?
VoBF: I did.
Shhhhh! Don't let HR find out or else we have to come up with new impressive sounding descriptors for our resumes.
This has been my experience. I graduated from DeVry with a degree with a similar GPA. I enrolled in 2005 right about the time the deregulation of the student loan industry occurred. I don't remember hearing anything bad about private colleges or how bad student loans were. I was out of high school and I didn't expect to go to college in the first place.
After some work experience it never became a topic of conversation for any prospective job. No one cared about where I got a piece of paper. What was a concern was whether I could do the job and fit in with the company. That first job was probably luck but it was the reason I haven't had issues with finding a job.
Fast forward and I have taken various other courses at public universities and my wife is currently getting her B.S. in Biology from a state university. She tells me her experiences which mimicked mine; it is hit or miss on the teacher and class. Some are great. Some are awful.
This isn't an apology to those institutions. It is the experience I have had with private colleges and state universities.
Obviously the turd with the peanut is better than the turd with the corn.
Duh. Why would anyone think that they are both disgusting?
"slander and inciting harassment" is now free speech?
You should have made the argument that being put on a ban list is not "slander or inciting harassment". You didn't. Instead you tried argue that taking proper legal actions to protect the reputation of oneself is the same as using the law to suppress ideas.
Did I get that right? What part of slander or libel should be legal in your eyes?
Here is an example: "XXongo is a child rapist." A statement that can and has ruined lives with just the accusation. If you take legal action to protect your reputation you are now using the legal system to suppress my freedom of speech because you didn't like what I said.
You didn't think your post through, did you?
Sure, those websites/companies can ban comments/commenters that are racist or w/e but then they don't "have a culture of free speech" like TFA is saying.
Kind of hard to say "we have a culture of free speech and love free expression so much except when we don't like what you say." with a straight face.
Just like the government, there are acceptable limitations that could be put in placed (doxxing, threats, etc) but that is not what we are talking about, are we.