If you were arguing for moving the odds more in our favor I would say you have a good point.
But since this is slashdot I think your quest for reassurance just involves the government sending the military budget as free money so you can go back to bed.
I would think the progressives would be all about making things (e.g. the odds) better.
False. A constitutional crisis is when a president says, "We are only going to enforce the parts of the law our party likes and refuse to enforce existing federal immigration laws". Using the IRS to silence opponents and the NSA to spy on political opponents and unmask them is merely an impeachable offense, but not a constitutional crisis per se.
The cause of a president winning an election is a parlor game and has no place in what the Constitution says to do. It doesn't matter if a hurricane caused it (cf. Mitt Romney's defeat) or if the Russians influenced it (currently there is more evidence the FEC hacked into voting terminals than Russia, per that raging Republican Dianne Feinstein's comments). I'm interested in knowing more about why Putin put Trump in power when Trump has consistently gone on the offense against Russia in all things Syria and ISIS.
If Trump really did something impeachable elected people should impeach him or voters should remove him. This whole thing about how the rules say a guy should send his own department to investigate himself is lawyer puffery. Obama certainly didn't send the FBI after the IRS tea party silencing or the NSA spying on and unmasking political opponents.
... when the Administration was asked to investigate itself over the IRS's hostile attacks on the tea party and the NSA's listening to everything (including the opposition party and unmasking their identities).
Why should Republican presidents comply with opponents calls for self-investigations when other parties refuse?
As a GOP guy, I'm glad to hear this kind of thinking (like the kind that said Trump had 100% chance of losing).
Surely the democrats should run Hillary again since she got most of the vote. Voters are not concerned about corruption problems in the DNC. Also there is widespread belief Trump (despite being rich in his own right and opposing him all over the Middle East) is somehow in the pocket of Putin.
Democrats like Dianne Feinstein are just dragging their feet when they say these allegations against Trump have no basis in evidence. The electorate rarely gives a second term to anybody anyway.
So pretty much the democrats should do exactly what they did last time or reach even further and nominate Jeremiah Wright, Martha Coakley, Elizabeth Warren, or Alvin Green. I am counting on you, DR, to contribute more posts exactly like this.
Spoken behalf of fabricated resveratrol, carbon dioxide, and medical research.
... but if this gets the government of California to stop funneling money into how you shouldn't even be in the SAME ROOM as your cell phone, I'll call it a win.
Wait. That doesn't makes sense. I thought that when you take the profit motive out, workers become more motivated because they aren't trying to cheat anyone. Is someone alleging the government doesn't handle things very well?
The FEC hit more voting machines than the Russians did during the election. Where's the outrage about the federal government helping the current administration? Or Susan Rice putting the existing government's opponent under direct survelience of the governent?
The narrative that Trump and Putin like each other is completely contrived or else why would we be threatening each other with war over Iran and Syria?
The Democrats have been promising to give Russia the world since Obama's hot mike incident. That's just what is commonly known. If I were Putin, I would want the Democrats in office.
The Russians never hacked never hacked the DNC. Why do you think all those high profile Democrats died immediately after the leaks under shady circumstances? Because they were the leakers! They leaked because their corrupt party gave Hillary the nomination when Sanders earned it.
Whatever Trumps flaws are (I didn't vote for him in the primary), Russia is not one of them.
That's like saying, "If I presuppose Christianity is a made up bolt on, I can explain things alternatively." Sure. Just like Marxism can explain the markets. But day traders don't use Marxism to drive their predictive models.
You can explain anything with any theory. You can explain the movements of Venus and Mecury in the geocentric theory using epicycles. That doesn't make it true.
"If you're explaining, you're losing". Ronaldus Maximus
You are advocating for sarcasm but say I'm the troll. I am confused.
So we both agree "cock holster" is derogatory... here's where you have a problem:
You claimed being a "nasty gay person" is different than being a "cock holster".
You seem to be evaluating both sides as "bad gay person" while saying each statement is different in a VERY OBVIOUS way.
If there is some kind of nuance there, it's not something you can legitimately expect people to pick up on.
To answer your question about Hillary, I guess I would interpret that Colbert would be saying she is loose morally. If Colbert thinks morals are inherently insensitive or soft bigotry or whatever, why would he even be making the statement? If he thinks morals are something his audience recognizes and has placed some bets on, then he's attacking her.
Colbert doesn't like Trump, so I'm inclined to think Colbert (in his case) was attacking Trump on the basis that homosexuality is bad. If Colbert didn't think homosexuality was bad, what was he saying?
Colbert isn't confused. He's just reading from a script someone else wrote. Some of his writers probably think one thing about homosexuality and the others something else. The man himself probably has lost touch with his own view and will just say anything for a laugh.
"He did *not* say Trump is bad "because he's like a nasty gay person". He said that Trump is Putin's cock holster."
You're suggesting those are different things? I'm finding that hard to accept.
If being a "cock holster" is completely neutral he was saying something unremarkable. You can't have it both ways here. If he's objecting to Trump he's also objecting to homosexuality.
Btw: if I resist the urge to be sarcastic does that lower my IQ or your IQ or what exactly? Or you get some kind of recognition by the herd if you are unhappy or what?
Slashdot Mirror
If you were arguing for moving the odds more in our favor I would say you have a good point.
But since this is slashdot I think your quest for reassurance just involves the government sending the military budget as free money so you can go back to bed.
I would think the progressives would be all about making things (e.g. the odds) better.
Maybe that's a misnomer?
False. A constitutional crisis is when a president says, "We are only going to enforce the parts of the law our party likes and refuse to enforce existing federal immigration laws". Using the IRS to silence opponents and the NSA to spy on political opponents and unmask them is merely an impeachable offense, but not a constitutional crisis per se.
The cause of a president winning an election is a parlor game and has no place in what the Constitution says to do. It doesn't matter if a hurricane caused it (cf. Mitt Romney's defeat) or if the Russians influenced it (currently there is more evidence the FEC hacked into voting terminals than Russia, per that raging Republican Dianne Feinstein's comments). I'm interested in knowing more about why Putin put Trump in power when Trump has consistently gone on the offense against Russia in all things Syria and ISIS.
If Trump really did something impeachable elected people should impeach him or voters should remove him. This whole thing about how the rules say a guy should send his own department to investigate himself is lawyer puffery. Obama certainly didn't send the FBI after the IRS tea party silencing or the NSA spying on and unmasking political opponents.
... when the Administration was asked to investigate itself over the IRS's hostile attacks on the tea party and the NSA's listening to everything (including the opposition party and unmasking their identities).
Why should Republican presidents comply with opponents calls for self-investigations when other parties refuse?
So I'd be interested in hearing how these things are reconciled.
There's a lot of fabrication in this arena, though.
If your finger prints get stolen, just get some new fingers.
Simple !
As a GOP guy, I'm glad to hear this kind of thinking (like the kind that said Trump had 100% chance of losing).
Surely the democrats should run Hillary again since she got most of the vote. Voters are not concerned about corruption problems in the DNC. Also there is widespread belief Trump (despite being rich in his own right and opposing him all over the Middle East) is somehow in the pocket of Putin.
Democrats like Dianne Feinstein are just dragging their feet when they say these allegations against Trump have no basis in evidence. The electorate rarely gives a second term to anybody anyway.
So pretty much the democrats should do exactly what they did last time or reach even further and nominate Jeremiah Wright, Martha Coakley, Elizabeth Warren, or Alvin Green. I am counting on you, DR, to contribute more posts exactly like this.
We're going to eject tax money hypersonically into space is all this means ...
What is a space plane going to stop from hitting us?
Spoken behalf of fabricated resveratrol, carbon dioxide, and medical research.
... but if this gets the government of California to stop funneling money into how you shouldn't even be in the SAME ROOM as your cell phone, I'll call it a win.
>> None of those amounts to "because its worth having."
... the important things are easy to overlook.
+1 well said
... is how this will help people get gigs.
Do people get cable subscriptions so they can be popular by purchasing something popular?
Apples image is suffering!
Let's run out and bury ourselves in the hills!
Wait. That doesn't makes sense. I thought that when you take the profit motive out, workers become more motivated because they aren't trying to cheat anyone. Is someone alleging the government doesn't handle things very well?
This idiot.
The FEC hit more voting machines than the Russians did during the election. Where's the outrage about the federal government helping the current administration? Or Susan Rice putting the existing government's opponent under direct survelience of the governent?
The narrative that Trump and Putin like each other is completely contrived or else why would we be threatening each other with war over Iran and Syria?
The Democrats have been promising to give Russia the world since Obama's hot mike incident. That's just what is commonly known. If I were Putin, I would want the Democrats in office.
The Russians never hacked never hacked the DNC. Why do you think all those high profile Democrats died immediately after the leaks under shady circumstances? Because they were the leakers! They leaked because their corrupt party gave Hillary the nomination when Sanders earned it.
Whatever Trumps flaws are (I didn't vote for him in the primary), Russia is not one of them.
Forcing everyone to buy something from the government means people pay their own ransom to the government.
Except they don't release you after you pay the money.
A "nutcase" based on their opinion on roundabouts?
Your definition of nutcase is going to be a very thick volume.
Oh no, now the progressives are also writing eulogies for the Democratic party?
The pendulum is going to swing back. Hopefully the GOP gets as much agenda through before it does.
...also a ton of funding to covert cars and intersections, of which there are hundreds of millions of in the US alone.
That's like saying, "If I presuppose Christianity is a made up bolt on, I can explain things alternatively." Sure. Just like Marxism can explain the markets. But day traders don't use Marxism to drive their predictive models.
You can explain anything with any theory. You can explain the movements of Venus and Mecury in the geocentric theory using epicycles. That doesn't make it true.
"If you're explaining, you're losing". Ronaldus Maximus
You are advocating for sarcasm but say I'm the troll. I am confused.
... here's where you have a problem:
So we both agree "cock holster" is derogatory
You claimed being a "nasty gay person" is different than being a "cock holster".
You seem to be evaluating both sides as "bad gay person" while saying each statement is different in a VERY OBVIOUS way.
If there is some kind of nuance there, it's not something you can legitimately expect people to pick up on.
To answer your question about Hillary, I guess I would interpret that Colbert would be saying she is loose morally. If Colbert thinks morals are inherently insensitive or soft bigotry or whatever, why would he even be making the statement? If he thinks morals are something his audience recognizes and has placed some bets on, then he's attacking her.
Colbert doesn't like Trump, so I'm inclined to think Colbert (in his case) was attacking Trump on the basis that homosexuality is bad. If Colbert didn't think homosexuality was bad, what was he saying?
Colbert isn't confused. He's just reading from a script someone else wrote. Some of his writers probably think one thing about homosexuality and the others something else. The man himself probably has lost touch with his own view and will just say anything for a laugh.
Is slashdot saying everyone is too stupid or too insensitive or too whatever to have their own political opinions?
"He did *not* say Trump is bad "because he's like a nasty gay person". He said that Trump is Putin's cock holster."
You're suggesting those are different things? I'm finding that hard to accept.
If being a "cock holster" is completely neutral he was saying something unremarkable. You can't have it both ways here. If he's objecting to Trump he's also objecting to homosexuality.
Btw: if I resist the urge to be sarcastic does that lower my IQ or your IQ or what exactly? Or you get some kind of recognition by the herd if you are unhappy or what?
NIST just realized how irrelevant they are and how they would bankrupt any company that didn't have the US federal governments funding.
I'm not sure you are following this very well.
Colbert basically said Trump is bad because he's like a nasty gay person.
The liberals are the ones objecting to this and want the government to make everything pleasant and smoothed over and neutered of any real content.
Conservatives just know better than to watch Colbert. Many of them don't even know who that guy is.
I find it peculiar how comfortable you are with the military power in America as Putin creeps west.