They don't have to copy the designs. They are provided free of charge. How else are they going to build and assemble the damn things for the US companies that need them produced for next to nothing so they can sell them at Wal Mart?
Glad to hear you at least give lip service to the correct answer, though your equivocation was palpable.
I also noticed you mentioned BLM when I had not. I will ignore your accusations of my intentions. They are unfounded and ridiculous, not to mention pathetically transparent. Personally, I was thinking of something entirely different, specifically extremist factions of free immigration groups and racially motivated violent religious groups (I have had unprovoked and unpleasant experiences with both in the past), but it is quite interesting to see where your head is stuck.
Also, the behavior of Twitter is and was irrelevant to my question. I specifically asked what *you* would do. Your answer was sufficient to answer the other questions I had about the way you experience cognition when considering questions of ethics, fairness, and propriety. Thank you.
If I was running any kind of site or hosting service, and I had customers or users using my service to promote hatred of ethnic and racial minorities or promote white supremacist ideas, I don't care if I lost their business, I'd cancel their accounts and refund any money I might owe them. I have no desire to silence them, but I don't see why I'm obligated to provide them a platform.
The crux of the matter comes easily to mind based on this paragraph. So I ask the question on some discerning people's minds because you avoided it in your answer completely. Would you also do the same thing with members of ethnic minorities supporting hatred of whites and promoting ethnic supremacist ideas?
No and you're an idiot. A screaming raving lunatic idiot driving over the cliff kind of idiot, by the way. The total amount of CO2 is the issue. The atmosphere cares nothing for the amount of pollution per person. Per capita emissions just means that we need to reproduce more and then everything is ok, right? Wrong, and wrong thinking at the most fundamental level. Consider, if they produce this much now with their underdeveloped emerging third world infrastructure, what will happen once they grow into their big boy pants? Huh?
You're arguing for their chance at a certain standard of living and wagering that against THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD? I have heard of cultural relativism, but this is just suicidal stupidity. Besides, the whole political end-game of AGW based conjecture is to reduce the consumption of Americans to that of a third world country. It is decidedly not to bring the Chinese up to the level of American consumption. That would break the world, literally.
If you give one single whiff of a care for the environment as it currently is you NEED to be involved and to DO SOMETHING about China.
Personally I don't give a shit. I can't wait for it to get hot enough that people with low IQ's start dropping dead from being dumbasses. For people like you, who would be the first to die in such a scenario, I think it may be best to reconsider your attitude about China.
As a totally uninterested reader with absolutely no skin in this game, a few things stand out in your post that concern me about how you communicate:
1) Your pejorative terminology leads me to believe you have an ingrained bias and that you have an axe to grind with a group of people you have invented. Not a hallmark of civil or intellectual discourse. The term "EM fanfappers" sounds like you are trying very hard to undermine the ability of people to rationally consider the viewpoints of other people.
2) "Myself, I've sponsored the LightSail of the Planetary society, because I think it's worthwhile." Not that I care, but your support of what could be considered a competing technology speaks to bias. Not saying you are biased, but pointing out that its appears you are in one "camp" and are disparaging another "camp." By the way, do "EM fanfappers" call you and your ilk "Lightsail lickers"?
3) You seem convinced of the results of experiments that haven't been done yet. Your certitude is unassailable. This is, in my experience, the realm of idiots, zealots, and people working very hard for their own self interest, to the detriment of others, all the while passing it off as what is best for everyone else. For instance, hard core Trump and Hillary supporters fall into this category.
4) You state the only way to travel to the stars is "x." How can you possibly know that this is the only way? Preconceived conclusions are bigotry.
5) You talk about science as a valid pursuit, yet you seem to be discouraging all lines of inquiry and any experimentation into what appears to be, at the very least, an interesting anomaly. This seems, if taken in the most flattering light, contradictory.
You talk a good game, but it looks like you already have your mind made up about everything. Why choose or be an advocate for science then?
Your phone is off. They ask you to open it with your finger. You can't. End of story. Don't provide excuses, or even speak to the matter at hand. It can't help, and will certainly hurt you to say anything regarding the matter.
"Am I being detained?" and/or "I want an attorney."
These are really the only statements you need to utter, ever, to a police officer under these circumstances. Keep in mind that statements you make to a police officer are only used for one reason: to prove you are guilty or to build a case against you and then prove you are guilty. You are not talking to a judge or a jury of your peers when speaking to an officer of the law that is interrogating you. This is important because only a judge or jury will prove your innocence, not a LEO. Any information you can provide is better within your control and not the control of an officer.
It is better to consider a human being in a uniform as a mechanism rather than a human being. They are trained to embody very specific roles, to act in a routine and specialized way to collect "evidence" and turn that "evidence" into convictions. Any information you provide them can and will be used to prove your guilt. That is the whole sum of their job in these circumstances.
IANAL. Any advice written above is for entertainment purposes only. Trying to obstruct an investigation by a legal authority will result in your incarceration, being falsely accused as a rapist and/or pedophile, and your eventual shooting death at the hands of unknown assailants.
"They are willing accomplices to this action and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Evidently these engineers lack a moral compass and their word means nothing. If they had a problem with this action they could easily have spoken up and taken action but they took the easy path and did nothing.
Even worse, they may believe that their actions are "for the greater good" and are therefore exempt from the normal routine of morality checks. Based on what I have seen from Google it appears this is part of their culture, the "Google way." Their constant interaction with and ease of access to high level political officeholders is incredibly concerning.
C.S. Lewis said it best:...a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
One can only hope that Google is just a bunch of crooks willing to sell us all out for a dollar or two. However, if they view themselves as our overlords of change, ushering us into their vision of a gilded future for our own benefit, well, were all fucked.
1) Humans are already conditioned to take orders from machines, or robots if you will. For instance, traffic lights are merely the most rudimentary form of self-regulation that humans have delegated to robots. Divorce yourself from anthropomorphic presentations of robots and you start to realize that humans are integrating their experience of life in ways that allow robot machines to dictate a large portion of what we consume, think about, and what activities we perform.
2) Humans and their behaviors are subject to reverse engineering. Whether its focus groups and mock votes by politicians, medical and psychological testing, or something more interesting and insidious like employees of Target figuring out how to tell with over 80% accuracy whether or not a woman has become pregnant based on what she buys. People's behavior, when considered on a large enough scale, can be data mined in such a way that gives the party with the data an incredible advantage in persuasion, prediction, and ultimately control over outcomes that most individuals would consider creepy and unfair.
3) Humans are using machine learning to make #1 more robust right now. Some if it is labor saving, most is in the realm of profit increase by automating, speeding up, running without a human in the loop sort of stuff. This will be interesting in economic ways in the short term, sociologically in the long term. What will be very interesting is when we turn machine learning to the tasks of #2. Applying the methods of a machine learning tools to decoding and manipulating both groups of people and individuals is an area where pitfalls are likely to abound.
I find this interesting and repulsive in the same breath. What I wouldn't give to have access to Facebook's data sets as data fodder for a home grown machine-learning-based predictive tools. I would rule the world.
The level of consumer data available is not comparable between the Twitter and Facebook platforms.
With Facebook you tell them everything: location, age, family size, education, background, employment, relationship, political leaning, posting style (mental state, personality type), browsing style (what links you like to click on, what bait do you take more often than not), what criteria causes you to like something, what you share with others, etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Most people even give them enough pictures to build a facial recognition profile of you and your closest family and friends.
With Twitter not so much. You just get echo chamber of masturbatory self-affirming re-tweets. There's not a ton of data and behavior that advertisers can sink their machine learning algorithm's teeth into. If you're a political science professor doing side research, maybe, but where's the money in that? Especially considering how the current owners have devalued their own brand but publicly suppressing certain speech, and more idiotically, certain speakers because of their political affiliation.
Apparently the answer is obvious to everyone except Twitter, as they continue to do Stupid Things with their platform.
4} We discover that consciousness is not bound to physical form and we can travel to any location, disembodied but conscious and aware. 5} We discover that all particles in the universe are subatomically entangled with each other and we can infer the position and velocity of every other particle in the universe from observing a single atom. 6} We discover that machine elves are actually aliens telling us not to leave the Earth because the rest of our galaxy is being used as an intergalactic waste dump. DMT now has a government required daily dosage.
You know who is qualified to make that call? A jury. As in "we the fucking people", you transparent shill, not some appointed bureaucrat sucking on the teat of his next employer, pre-coronation.
Your supposition about intent is a fabrication. If you don't know this you are woefully ignorant of the law and circumstances on this subject and should disqualify yourself from speaking. If you do know it, which I think you do, you're a shill as accused. Either way, you fail miserably to provide a convincing argument.
If you aren't already familiar with the non-trivial details about intent and why it is completely irrelevant to the handling of classified documents, please take a couple of minutes out of your day to enlighten yourself. It should help make sure you don't spout self-evident falsehoods in the future. Look up Naval Reservist Brian Nishimura. He was successfully prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. Intent was not an issue. Why? because the law that was broken has no regard for intent.
If the same standard applied to this Naval reservist was applied to Hillary Clinton she would be in the middle of a prosecution now. If we will hold a Naval reservist to this standard, how much more should we hold someone of a higher position?
Can't figure out which politician or politicians you are talking about. First it was Chelsea and Trump, then I thought of John Kerry, the Bushes, and then everything just started to unwind.
If the reason for estate taxes is as you state, it is not working. Nope, not one bit.
If they are influencing our elections by providing that elusive and oft promised but ne're delivered Obamian transparency, undermining an entire administration's corrupt miscarriage of justice, and finally serving up the goods from a 10,000 unfulfilled FOIA requests, then GOOD. We need to be influenced. More influence please! Influence the shit out of me and everyone else! HARDER!!!
If exposing the truth is detrimental to one of the parties that might be something the electorate deserves to know, you know, before the election.
Besides, I ordered a shit ton of Jiffy Pop from Amazon in preparation for the culmination of this election cycle./popcorn GO!
No. It might be unconstitutional if it were a demand or order, but a request, with no pressure on Yahoo to submit to it?
You ever deal with law enforcement, like, ever? Its all pressure, all the time. You don't think there was some coercion involved? Some quid pro quo? Some something as carrot or stick, or both? A little of the old good cop/bad cop?
You think they just sent a letter to the CEO of Yahoo, said pretty please, and ended the email with "if you wouldn't mind too much violating the trust of your entire customer base?"
There was coercion. There were heavy-handed tactics. There was quid pro quo. There were conversations that you and I would look at as extortion or even blackmail. Of course there was pressure!
People with immunity are generally held in contempt if they plead the 5th.
Combetta pled the 5th while under immunity protection. No contempt of court was issued.
So in this case, immunity turned out to be a protection against testifying rather than an inducement to reveal facts. Combetta got to have his cake and eat it too. So did Hillary and all of the others that could be implicated by his testimony in this ridiculous farce.
Excellent comment. The only reason anyone is even considering Trump is that Hillary is so objectionable in so many ways. Its incredibly sad that the democrat machine was somehow enticed or forced into committing to her as their only candidate. What should be the easiest cake-walk in history for the democrat presidential race is now a disgusting slog through the worst tactical shit slinging either party can come up with. Neither one of them has a leg to stand on so they keep the air filled with so much feces that the average American is blinded by it.
I just can't stop thinking "how did we let this happen?" What a fucking mess.
Have you actually seen the candidates? Looked at them, considered their backgrounds, seen their flaws, without comparing them to each other? Compare them to some of the more solid citizens you know, not another psycho power-mongering politician. I have and I wouldn't hire either of them to clean my septic system, much less for the office of president of the US.
I think it is exceptionally safe to say that any of their "supporters" are in fact "fanatics." They would have to be in order to generate the suspension of disbelief and maniacal myopia necessary to support either of them. Their flaws are like something straight out of bad fiction, and yet here they are, the first runner up and the winner of the most "powerful job on the planet."
And to think, many of you are worried about global warming destroying the planet in the next 100 years. HA! The fucktard you elect next will probably end it in less than 8.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to copy the designs. They are provided free of charge. How else are they going to build and assemble the damn things for the US companies that need them produced for next to nothing so they can sell them at Wal Mart?
"I don't think it is right to kill an infant"
You called this a hateful opinion. Care to clarify?
Glad to hear you at least give lip service to the correct answer, though your equivocation was palpable.
I also noticed you mentioned BLM when I had not. I will ignore your accusations of my intentions. They are unfounded and ridiculous, not to mention pathetically transparent. Personally, I was thinking of something entirely different, specifically extremist factions of free immigration groups and racially motivated violent religious groups (I have had unprovoked and unpleasant experiences with both in the past), but it is quite interesting to see where your head is stuck.
Also, the behavior of Twitter is and was irrelevant to my question. I specifically asked what *you* would do. Your answer was sufficient to answer the other questions I had about the way you experience cognition when considering questions of ethics, fairness, and propriety. Thank you.
If I was running any kind of site or hosting service, and I had customers or users using my service to promote hatred of ethnic and racial minorities or promote white supremacist ideas, I don't care if I lost their business, I'd cancel their accounts and refund any money I might owe them. I have no desire to silence them, but I don't see why I'm obligated to provide them a platform.
The crux of the matter comes easily to mind based on this paragraph. So I ask the question on some discerning people's minds because you avoided it in your answer completely. Would you also do the same thing with members of ethnic minorities supporting hatred of whites and promoting ethnic supremacist ideas?
I wonder if you can answer without equivocation.
No and you're an idiot. A screaming raving lunatic idiot driving over the cliff kind of idiot, by the way. The total amount of CO2 is the issue. The atmosphere cares nothing for the amount of pollution per person. Per capita emissions just means that we need to reproduce more and then everything is ok, right? Wrong, and wrong thinking at the most fundamental level. Consider, if they produce this much now with their underdeveloped emerging third world infrastructure, what will happen once they grow into their big boy pants? Huh?
You're arguing for their chance at a certain standard of living and wagering that against THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD? I have heard of cultural relativism, but this is just suicidal stupidity. Besides, the whole political end-game of AGW based conjecture is to reduce the consumption of Americans to that of a third world country. It is decidedly not to bring the Chinese up to the level of American consumption. That would break the world, literally.
If you give one single whiff of a care for the environment as it currently is you NEED to be involved and to DO SOMETHING about China.
Personally I don't give a shit. I can't wait for it to get hot enough that people with low IQ's start dropping dead from being dumbasses. For people like you, who would be the first to die in such a scenario, I think it may be best to reconsider your attitude about China.
As a totally uninterested reader with absolutely no skin in this game, a few things stand out in your post that concern me about how you communicate:
1) Your pejorative terminology leads me to believe you have an ingrained bias and that you have an axe to grind with a group of people you have invented. Not a hallmark of civil or intellectual discourse. The term "EM fanfappers" sounds like you are trying very hard to undermine the ability of people to rationally consider the viewpoints of other people.
2) "Myself, I've sponsored the LightSail of the Planetary society, because I think it's worthwhile." Not that I care, but your support of what could be considered a competing technology speaks to bias. Not saying you are biased, but pointing out that its appears you are in one "camp" and are disparaging another "camp." By the way, do "EM fanfappers" call you and your ilk "Lightsail lickers"?
3) You seem convinced of the results of experiments that haven't been done yet. Your certitude is unassailable. This is, in my experience, the realm of idiots, zealots, and people working very hard for their own self interest, to the detriment of others, all the while passing it off as what is best for everyone else. For instance, hard core Trump and Hillary supporters fall into this category.
4) You state the only way to travel to the stars is "x." How can you possibly know that this is the only way? Preconceived conclusions are bigotry.
5) You talk about science as a valid pursuit, yet you seem to be discouraging all lines of inquiry and any experimentation into what appears to be, at the very least, an interesting anomaly. This seems, if taken in the most flattering light, contradictory.
You talk a good game, but it looks like you already have your mind made up about everything. Why choose or be an advocate for science then?
CBT = Cognitive Behavior Therapy
OR
CBT = Cock and Ball Torture
How you interpret this acronym determines how entertaining the previous post is.
Anal?
No excuse is even better.
Your phone is off. They ask you to open it with your finger. You can't. End of story. Don't provide excuses, or even speak to the matter at hand. It can't help, and will certainly hurt you to say anything regarding the matter.
"Am I being detained?" and/or "I want an attorney."
These are really the only statements you need to utter, ever, to a police officer under these circumstances. Keep in mind that statements you make to a police officer are only used for one reason: to prove you are guilty or to build a case against you and then prove you are guilty. You are not talking to a judge or a jury of your peers when speaking to an officer of the law that is interrogating you. This is important because only a judge or jury will prove your innocence, not a LEO. Any information you can provide is better within your control and not the control of an officer.
It is better to consider a human being in a uniform as a mechanism rather than a human being. They are trained to embody very specific roles, to act in a routine and specialized way to collect "evidence" and turn that "evidence" into convictions. Any information you provide them can and will be used to prove your guilt. That is the whole sum of their job in these circumstances.
IANAL. Any advice written above is for entertainment purposes only. Trying to obstruct an investigation by a legal authority will result in your incarceration, being falsely accused as a rapist and/or pedophile, and your eventual shooting death at the hands of unknown assailants.
"They are willing accomplices to this action and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Evidently these engineers lack a moral compass and their word means nothing. If they had a problem with this action they could easily have spoken up and taken action but they took the easy path and did nothing.
Even worse, they may believe that their actions are "for the greater good" and are therefore exempt from the normal routine of morality checks. Based on what I have seen from Google it appears this is part of their culture, the "Google way." Their constant interaction with and ease of access to high level political officeholders is incredibly concerning.
C.S. Lewis said it best: ...a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
One can only hope that Google is just a bunch of crooks willing to sell us all out for a dollar or two. However, if they view themselves as our overlords of change, ushering us into their vision of a gilded future for our own benefit, well, were all fucked.
Great post, thought roads I have been down.
What concerns me:
1) Humans are already conditioned to take orders from machines, or robots if you will. For instance, traffic lights are merely the most rudimentary form of self-regulation that humans have delegated to robots. Divorce yourself from anthropomorphic presentations of robots and you start to realize that humans are integrating their experience of life in ways that allow robot machines to dictate a large portion of what we consume, think about, and what activities we perform.
2) Humans and their behaviors are subject to reverse engineering. Whether its focus groups and mock votes by politicians, medical and psychological testing, or something more interesting and insidious like employees of Target figuring out how to tell with over 80% accuracy whether or not a woman has become pregnant based on what she buys. People's behavior, when considered on a large enough scale, can be data mined in such a way that gives the party with the data an incredible advantage in persuasion, prediction, and ultimately control over outcomes that most individuals would consider creepy and unfair.
3) Humans are using machine learning to make #1 more robust right now. Some if it is labor saving, most is in the realm of profit increase by automating, speeding up, running without a human in the loop sort of stuff. This will be interesting in economic ways in the short term, sociologically in the long term. What will be very interesting is when we turn machine learning to the tasks of #2. Applying the methods of a machine learning tools to decoding and manipulating both groups of people and individuals is an area where pitfalls are likely to abound.
I find this interesting and repulsive in the same breath. What I wouldn't give to have access to Facebook's data sets as data fodder for a home grown machine-learning-based predictive tools. I would rule the world.
These slghts against us Trump supporters ain't doing anybody no service.
These here slights against us Trump supporters ain't doin' nobody no service, nohow.
FTFY
This sounds like a good time to start a new political party. I think Americans would really jump on that bandwagon.
A new party whose candidate swears to wear a body camera and live stream the whole time they are in office. The "Transparency Party."
Hey if its good enough for police its definitely good enough for politicians.
They could finance their whole campaign selling the advertising rights to bathroom breaks.
The level of consumer data available is not comparable between the Twitter and Facebook platforms.
With Facebook you tell them everything: location, age, family size, education, background, employment, relationship, political leaning, posting style (mental state, personality type), browsing style (what links you like to click on, what bait do you take more often than not), what criteria causes you to like something, what you share with others, etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Most people even give them enough pictures to build a facial recognition profile of you and your closest family and friends.
With Twitter not so much. You just get echo chamber of masturbatory self-affirming re-tweets. There's not a ton of data and behavior that advertisers can sink their machine learning algorithm's teeth into. If you're a political science professor doing side research, maybe, but where's the money in that? Especially considering how the current owners have devalued their own brand but publicly suppressing certain speech, and more idiotically, certain speakers because of their political affiliation.
Apparently the answer is obvious to everyone except Twitter, as they continue to do Stupid Things with their platform.
While we're at it lets add in:
4} We discover that consciousness is not bound to physical form and we can travel to any location, disembodied but conscious and aware.
5} We discover that all particles in the universe are subatomically entangled with each other and we can infer the position and velocity of every other particle in the universe from observing a single atom.
6} We discover that machine elves are actually aliens telling us not to leave the Earth because the rest of our galaxy is being used as an intergalactic waste dump. DMT now has a government required daily dosage.
Science fantasy is such fun! Keep it up!
You know who is qualified to make that call? A jury. As in "we the fucking people", you transparent shill, not some appointed bureaucrat sucking on the teat of his next employer, pre-coronation.
Your supposition about intent is a fabrication. If you don't know this you are woefully ignorant of the law and circumstances on this subject and should disqualify yourself from speaking. If you do know it, which I think you do, you're a shill as accused. Either way, you fail miserably to provide a convincing argument.
If you aren't already familiar with the non-trivial details about intent and why it is completely irrelevant to the handling of classified documents, please take a couple of minutes out of your day to enlighten yourself. It should help make sure you don't spout self-evident falsehoods in the future. Look up Naval Reservist Brian Nishimura. He was successfully prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. Intent was not an issue. Why? because the law that was broken has no regard for intent.
If the same standard applied to this Naval reservist was applied to Hillary Clinton she would be in the middle of a prosecution now. If we will hold a Naval reservist to this standard, how much more should we hold someone of a higher position?
Did..did they never teach you how to shut off the main breaker in your house? lol
Notice how he stuttered? This is the result when you have to learn that lesson the hard way...
Can't figure out which politician or politicians you are talking about. First it was Chelsea and Trump, then I thought of John Kerry, the Bushes, and then everything just started to unwind.
If the reason for estate taxes is as you state, it is not working. Nope, not one bit.
The latest iPhone is 100x faster than the original iPhone was 9 years ago.
And 10000x faster than the original iPhone after updating its iOS. Planned obsolescence? More like engineered unusability.
Dicks.
If they are influencing our elections by providing that elusive and oft promised but ne're delivered Obamian transparency, undermining an entire administration's corrupt miscarriage of justice, and finally serving up the goods from a 10,000 unfulfilled FOIA requests, then GOOD. We need to be influenced. More influence please! Influence the shit out of me and everyone else! HARDER!!!
If exposing the truth is detrimental to one of the parties that might be something the electorate deserves to know, you know, before the election.
Besides, I ordered a shit ton of Jiffy Pop from Amazon in preparation for the culmination of this election cycle. /popcorn GO!
You don't have to believe, you just have to draw eyes on the wall...
Wired
New Scientist
Scientific American
No. It might be unconstitutional if it were a demand or order, but a request, with no pressure on Yahoo to submit to it?
You ever deal with law enforcement, like, ever? Its all pressure, all the time. You don't think there was some coercion involved? Some quid pro quo? Some something as carrot or stick, or both? A little of the old good cop/bad cop?
You think they just sent a letter to the CEO of Yahoo, said pretty please, and ended the email with "if you wouldn't mind too much violating the trust of your entire customer base?"
There was coercion. There were heavy-handed tactics. There was quid pro quo. There were conversations that you and I would look at as extortion or even blackmail. Of course there was pressure!
People with immunity are generally held in contempt if they plead the 5th.
Combetta pled the 5th while under immunity protection. No contempt of court was issued.
So in this case, immunity turned out to be a protection against testifying rather than an inducement to reveal facts. Combetta got to have his cake and eat it too. So did Hillary and all of the others that could be implicated by his testimony in this ridiculous farce.
Excellent comment. The only reason anyone is even considering Trump is that Hillary is so objectionable in so many ways. Its incredibly sad that the democrat machine was somehow enticed or forced into committing to her as their only candidate. What should be the easiest cake-walk in history for the democrat presidential race is now a disgusting slog through the worst tactical shit slinging either party can come up with. Neither one of them has a leg to stand on so they keep the air filled with so much feces that the average American is blinded by it.
I just can't stop thinking "how did we let this happen?" What a fucking mess.
Have you actually seen the candidates? Looked at them, considered their backgrounds, seen their flaws, without comparing them to each other? Compare them to some of the more solid citizens you know, not another psycho power-mongering politician. I have and I wouldn't hire either of them to clean my septic system, much less for the office of president of the US.
I think it is exceptionally safe to say that any of their "supporters" are in fact "fanatics." They would have to be in order to generate the suspension of disbelief and maniacal myopia necessary to support either of them. Their flaws are like something straight out of bad fiction, and yet here they are, the first runner up and the winner of the most "powerful job on the planet."
And to think, many of you are worried about global warming destroying the planet in the next 100 years. HA! The fucktard you elect next will probably end it in less than 8.
Thanks America.