Governmental power will always be abused, and the only way to limit that abuse is to limit how much power you give government.
We used to have this document that listed the limited powers of the federal government and strictly forbade it from doing most everything else but nobody pays attention to that thing anymore.
I agree with that. I would think an RNC leak would actually help Trump. It would show all the RNC executives shitting on Trump and conspiring against him like the DNC did Bernie, except Trump had a strategy for beating them. It would corroborate Trump's narrative that the system, including the primaries, is rigged.
I prefer adversarial media. With both Breitbart and Mother Jones I know exactly where they stand. Neither is pretending to be unbiased. You can see what issues matter to different people of different ideologies, and then do your own fact-checking. But then you get CNN blatantly editing shit to fit their narrative while pretending to be unbiased "news." No, it's propaganda. I don't think it's possible to be unbiased. Humans can't be. Anyone claiming to be unbiased is lying.
That's a good chunk of the human condition. Good luck solving that.
That's one of the purposes of systems of morality and religion, and parenting.
My family took a vacation with my wife's best friend's family. Their five (six?) year old was a real piece of work. Constantly disobeying and causing trouble, and his mom was frustrated with him and mentioned his behavioral problems at school, too. She didn't ask me for advice, so I didn't give it, but watching them for that week it was pretty obvious what the issue was: she never punished the kid for lying. Only for things that involved physical violence, that someone would notice. So if he just snatched one of the other kids' candy bars and the victim cried, he'd get yelled at. "NO! That's wrong!" But if instead he conned him, "Do you want your candy bar right now?" "No." Snatch. Then it was okay.
He'd lie straight to their faces and they treated it like a joke. "Mom can I have a candy bar?" "Did you already have one?" "(Obvious lie) Noooooo..." "(smirk) Hmmm...yes you did! Go eat a banana if you're hungry." "Awwww..." They treated it like a game. There's no penalty for lying, and no penalty for trying to break the rules (thieving candy bars) so all that teaches him is "get better at lying."
They even helped him with lies. At the end of the vacation we had all our kids' toys packed up by the door to leave. Out of the corner of my eye I see the kid taking my son's transformers and sneaking them upstairs to put with his stuff so later he can say "Oh, hey must have left his toys here..." So I tell the parents, and they tell him to bring the toys back. Pissed at being caught, he throws my son's transformer toy down the stairs. Instead of punishing him for first trying to steal the toy, and second trying to break the toy once he was caught, they ask "Did you do that on purpose...or was it an accident?" "(Obvious lie) Accident." "Okay be more careful." Fuck you people! It was clearly on purpose. You're feeding him lies to escape punishment for his shit behavior and you wonder why he has behavioral problems.
I just see that a lot, both in person and on TV. Kids lie to their parents and their parents smirk and say "uh uh, I don't believe you!" like it's a game. I can't stand that shit.
You realize WikiLeaks doesn't obtain the files themselves, right? They publish what they're given. If they were given Republican/Trump docs and then they sneakily held on to them to protect them, the leaker would just hand the docs over to CNN. Either the Republicans run a tighter ship with better security, or there's nothing incriminating/shady to leak.
We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state. The massive corporations have similar interests (mass immigration for cheap labor, free trade, etc), they own the politicians and the media, the corps make the policy decisions, their politicians enact them and the media propagandizes to the people why things that are clearly not in their best interests like flooding the country with semi-retarded 3rd worlders are the good, moral things to do, citizen, and anyone who disagrees is an evil Nazi. This is how you conquer a nation, with very special episodes of Blossom.
Is the government there to serve the interests of the biggest businesses, or the people? Because you know what'll really help the American middle class is millions of more H1-B visas for FaceBook.
Yeah I felt bad for my treatment of Bernie supporters after seeing that video. I'm a right-winger but believed in the general validity of Bernie's "revolution" before the Chicago riot. That Bernie was pretty much honest and his supporters saw the same problems I did but just had wrong, misguided solutions. And after the riots I said "fuck these people." Hillary's deception absolutely worked on me. I blamed Bernie's people for the riots she paid for.
Hillary got full questions from CNN and topics from Fox. When one side gets questions ahead of time and the other does not, that's rigged. Even if all candidates got the questions ahead of time, if the audience was not informed of that, they were deceived.
I know having chatted with you for weeks about this stuff, it won't matter. You have made up your mind that "dems are good" and that's it. I don't think there's anything you won't deny or handwave away. We could have Hillary on tape looking directly into the camera and saying "I'm selling the nuclear launch codes to Iran for $5, so that I may profit that $5, and I don't care if they then nuke everyone, and you all die in nuclear fire" and David Thornley would be right there to say "well that doesn't mean the Iranians will nuke us, and Trump said mean things about women."
I was surprised by Hillary getting full questions from CNN and topics from Fox before debates. I mean, I should know it's all just a sham. The media, the government, and the DNC are just a puppet show. Lies, brainwashing and propaganda. And democrats are totally fine with this because go blue team go.
See, people get upset when their expectations don't match their reality. I understand you're autistic, so I'm trying to explain to you how normal people behave. The general public is under the impression that the debates are fair and impartial, and no one has heard the questions before, because part of what they're judging is the candidate's ability to think on their feet, not their ability to memorize a short speech. If people find out the debate is not fair and impartial, and is in fact just a show, and even rigged in favor of one side or the other, they'll get very, very, angry. If the public gets angry enough about the political process, they start pulling out guillotines and such. This is why it's a good idea to not make the people too angry with all the lies and the deceit.
You could also just try google. It's not like democrats having dead people vote and busing minorities from polling place to polling place is any big secret.
Okay. Well, for non-autists, here's how it works. The man says something to the woman like "hey baby, wanna come see my collection of erotic Japanese lithographs?" (or in the modern parlance, "netflix and chill") This is called a "pretext." No one actually cares about the lithographs. It's just an excuse to be alone.
Once you're alone, the man and the woman chat and flirt. The girl tosses her hair, laughs at jokes that aren't funny and generally signals her interest and availability to the man. When the guy thinks she's ready, and will agree to move forward, he tries to kiss her, and honk her boobs. He does not get the express written consent of the woman (and Major League Baseball) before making his move. Essentially, he's reading her mind. And this is exactly what she wants him to do: correctly read her mind. She does not want some pussy meekly asking "M'lady, w-would it be acceptable if I was to kisseth thy on the lips, and grabbeth of they womanhood?"
Now, most of the time, this works out well and sexy-time ensues, because she wouldn't have agreed to be alone with the man, or laughed at the stupid jokes if she didn't want to get physical with him. Sometimes, though, the woman is incredibly naive, and actually just wanted to see the lithographs. Sometimes she's a cocktease who just wanted the attention (particularly from a rich, famous man) and so she led him on. She will then say "no, this isn't what I wanted" and so long as the man stops when she says "no," his worst crime is failing to read a woman's mind. But there's no malice involved, and no reason to condemn an honest misunderstanding as "sexual assault." Everyone should just feel a little embarrassed, move on, and not talk about it again.
This is why modern feminist ideas of "rape culture" are stupid. Before the sexual revolution we didn't let men and women be alone together. We had chaperones. We socially shamed men who wanted to be alone with women as pigs and women who wanted to be alone with men as sluts. This prevented most cases of unwanted touching. Now however, they want to be able to put themselves in positions where unwanted touching can occur without judgement, but when the man fails to read the woman's mind properly, she's suddenly a poor innocent victim and the man needs to punished (by government, even!).
You don't get to have it both ways. Women are either incapable of navigating sexual situations in which case we go back to chaperones and slut shaming, or they're strong independent wymynz and they can deal with a misplaced grope here and there when somebody gets their wires crossed without having to run to the state.
Personally, I don't give a shit about any of this crap. I think feminism is retarded. What I find hilarious is the feminists telling me Trump is the bad man for disrespecting women and therefore I need to give up on the policies of his I like. But Hillary, silencing her husband's rape victims (objectively worse), and they're not willing to give up on their policies to dump her! Clearly, the president's treatment of women in private is not actually that big of a deal to them. If it isn't a big deal to them, and it's THEIR FUCKING ISSUE, then why the hell should I care?
It'd be like yelling at a Democrat that they can't vote for Hillary now because her Wall Street speeches reveal she'll use executive actions to enact gun control. If you're voting for the Democrat, you either want the guns snatched, or you don't give a shit about guns anyway. It's not your issue, and not persuasive!
Article II of the constitution doesn't say anything about the Presidency being a proxy battle for gender culture wars, so I do not give a fuck one way or the other how the president treats women in private. Feminists can take their gender politics bullshit and cram it right up their pussies. Nobody else wants to grab them, that's for damn sure.
Scientific polling that makes voting feel meaningless
My problem with the polling is it's not really scientific. The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable. Frequently they're very unreasonable. If I made a poll for California but made my sample 80% Republicans and said "Trump will win California," would you trust it? But I could do that, say it's a "scientific poll" (because it uses numbers?) and then people would bandy it around for propaganda purposes.
The polls aren't falsifiable right now because nobody really knows what the electorate thinks right now. An awful lot of these polls comes from what are essentially advertising agencies, they're used to shape public opinion ("9 out of 10 dentists prefer anal"), going for bandwagon effect to gain support or demoralization against the other side, when no one can check their results they shape the results to whatever the people paying for the poll want, and then a week before the election they try to actually get it right so they can say "see, we're accurate, trust us next cycle!"
Strange, it looks like he admitted defeat to me. Why else not agree to accept the result? That's what a child does when they know they are going to lose.
I took it as a warning to the Democrats. The Dems have a long, long history of voter fraud and Trump is putting them on notice that he's wise to their schemes, and we're not taking it this time.
Slashdot Mirror
Governmental power will always be abused, and the only way to limit that abuse is to limit how much power you give government.
We used to have this document that listed the limited powers of the federal government and strictly forbade it from doing most everything else but nobody pays attention to that thing anymore.
I agree with that. I would think an RNC leak would actually help Trump. It would show all the RNC executives shitting on Trump and conspiring against him like the DNC did Bernie, except Trump had a strategy for beating them. It would corroborate Trump's narrative that the system, including the primaries, is rigged.
The BBC definitely has their own biases, as well.
I prefer adversarial media. With both Breitbart and Mother Jones I know exactly where they stand. Neither is pretending to be unbiased. You can see what issues matter to different people of different ideologies, and then do your own fact-checking. But then you get CNN blatantly editing shit to fit their narrative while pretending to be unbiased "news." No, it's propaganda. I don't think it's possible to be unbiased. Humans can't be. Anyone claiming to be unbiased is lying.
That's a good chunk of the human condition. Good luck solving that.
That's one of the purposes of systems of morality and religion, and parenting.
My family took a vacation with my wife's best friend's family. Their five (six?) year old was a real piece of work. Constantly disobeying and causing trouble, and his mom was frustrated with him and mentioned his behavioral problems at school, too. She didn't ask me for advice, so I didn't give it, but watching them for that week it was pretty obvious what the issue was: she never punished the kid for lying. Only for things that involved physical violence, that someone would notice. So if he just snatched one of the other kids' candy bars and the victim cried, he'd get yelled at. "NO! That's wrong!" But if instead he conned him, "Do you want your candy bar right now?" "No." Snatch. Then it was okay.
He'd lie straight to their faces and they treated it like a joke. "Mom can I have a candy bar?" "Did you already have one?" "(Obvious lie) Noooooo..." "(smirk) Hmmm...yes you did! Go eat a banana if you're hungry." "Awwww..." They treated it like a game. There's no penalty for lying, and no penalty for trying to break the rules (thieving candy bars) so all that teaches him is "get better at lying."
They even helped him with lies. At the end of the vacation we had all our kids' toys packed up by the door to leave. Out of the corner of my eye I see the kid taking my son's transformers and sneaking them upstairs to put with his stuff so later he can say "Oh, hey must have left his toys here..." So I tell the parents, and they tell him to bring the toys back. Pissed at being caught, he throws my son's transformer toy down the stairs. Instead of punishing him for first trying to steal the toy, and second trying to break the toy once he was caught, they ask "Did you do that on purpose...or was it an accident?" "(Obvious lie) Accident." "Okay be more careful." Fuck you people! It was clearly on purpose. You're feeding him lies to escape punishment for his shit behavior and you wonder why he has behavioral problems.
I just see that a lot, both in person and on TV. Kids lie to their parents and their parents smirk and say "uh uh, I don't believe you!" like it's a game. I can't stand that shit.
"What kind of disabled are you?"
"Leg....disabled...?"
You realize WikiLeaks doesn't obtain the files themselves, right? They publish what they're given. If they were given Republican/Trump docs and then they sneakily held on to them to protect them, the leaker would just hand the docs over to CNN. Either the Republicans run a tighter ship with better security, or there's nothing incriminating/shady to leak.
We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state. The massive corporations have similar interests (mass immigration for cheap labor, free trade, etc), they own the politicians and the media, the corps make the policy decisions, their politicians enact them and the media propagandizes to the people why things that are clearly not in their best interests like flooding the country with semi-retarded 3rd worlders are the good, moral things to do, citizen, and anyone who disagrees is an evil Nazi. This is how you conquer a nation, with very special episodes of Blossom.
Is the government there to serve the interests of the biggest businesses, or the people? Because you know what'll really help the American middle class is millions of more H1-B visas for FaceBook.
I'd love to know about the yoga routines of a walking corpse.
Yeah I felt bad for my treatment of Bernie supporters after seeing that video. I'm a right-winger but believed in the general validity of Bernie's "revolution" before the Chicago riot. That Bernie was pretty much honest and his supporters saw the same problems I did but just had wrong, misguided solutions. And after the riots I said "fuck these people." Hillary's deception absolutely worked on me. I blamed Bernie's people for the riots she paid for.
Hillary got full questions from CNN and topics from Fox. When one side gets questions ahead of time and the other does not, that's rigged. Even if all candidates got the questions ahead of time, if the audience was not informed of that, they were deceived.
I know having chatted with you for weeks about this stuff, it won't matter. You have made up your mind that "dems are good" and that's it. I don't think there's anything you won't deny or handwave away. We could have Hillary on tape looking directly into the camera and saying "I'm selling the nuclear launch codes to Iran for $5, so that I may profit that $5, and I don't care if they then nuke everyone, and you all die in nuclear fire" and David Thornley would be right there to say "well that doesn't mean the Iranians will nuke us, and Trump said mean things about women."
I would think that the rigging would be the threat to democracy, not the being wary of the rigging.
I was surprised by Hillary getting full questions from CNN and topics from Fox before debates. I mean, I should know it's all just a sham. The media, the government, and the DNC are just a puppet show. Lies, brainwashing and propaganda. And democrats are totally fine with this because go blue team go.
The leadership, yes. Why do you think they've been so opposed to Trump?
Lady doth protest too much.
It seems to me women vote overwhelmingly for economic security rather than economic liberty. How do you figure he's wrong?
See, people get upset when their expectations don't match their reality. I understand you're autistic, so I'm trying to explain to you how normal people behave. The general public is under the impression that the debates are fair and impartial, and no one has heard the questions before, because part of what they're judging is the candidate's ability to think on their feet, not their ability to memorize a short speech. If people find out the debate is not fair and impartial, and is in fact just a show, and even rigged in favor of one side or the other, they'll get very, very, angry. If the public gets angry enough about the political process, they start pulling out guillotines and such. This is why it's a good idea to not make the people too angry with all the lies and the deceit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You could also just try google. It's not like democrats having dead people vote and busing minorities from polling place to polling place is any big secret.
Okay. Well, for non-autists, here's how it works. The man says something to the woman like "hey baby, wanna come see my collection of erotic Japanese lithographs?" (or in the modern parlance, "netflix and chill") This is called a "pretext." No one actually cares about the lithographs. It's just an excuse to be alone.
Once you're alone, the man and the woman chat and flirt. The girl tosses her hair, laughs at jokes that aren't funny and generally signals her interest and availability to the man. When the guy thinks she's ready, and will agree to move forward, he tries to kiss her, and honk her boobs. He does not get the express written consent of the woman (and Major League Baseball) before making his move. Essentially, he's reading her mind. And this is exactly what she wants him to do: correctly read her mind. She does not want some pussy meekly asking "M'lady, w-would it be acceptable if I was to kisseth thy on the lips, and grabbeth of they womanhood?"
Now, most of the time, this works out well and sexy-time ensues, because she wouldn't have agreed to be alone with the man, or laughed at the stupid jokes if she didn't want to get physical with him. Sometimes, though, the woman is incredibly naive, and actually just wanted to see the lithographs. Sometimes she's a cocktease who just wanted the attention (particularly from a rich, famous man) and so she led him on. She will then say "no, this isn't what I wanted" and so long as the man stops when she says "no," his worst crime is failing to read a woman's mind. But there's no malice involved, and no reason to condemn an honest misunderstanding as "sexual assault." Everyone should just feel a little embarrassed, move on, and not talk about it again.
This is why modern feminist ideas of "rape culture" are stupid. Before the sexual revolution we didn't let men and women be alone together. We had chaperones. We socially shamed men who wanted to be alone with women as pigs and women who wanted to be alone with men as sluts. This prevented most cases of unwanted touching. Now however, they want to be able to put themselves in positions where unwanted touching can occur without judgement, but when the man fails to read the woman's mind properly, she's suddenly a poor innocent victim and the man needs to punished (by government, even!).
You don't get to have it both ways. Women are either incapable of navigating sexual situations in which case we go back to chaperones and slut shaming, or they're strong independent wymynz and they can deal with a misplaced grope here and there when somebody gets their wires crossed without having to run to the state.
Personally, I don't give a shit about any of this crap. I think feminism is retarded. What I find hilarious is the feminists telling me Trump is the bad man for disrespecting women and therefore I need to give up on the policies of his I like. But Hillary, silencing her husband's rape victims (objectively worse), and they're not willing to give up on their policies to dump her! Clearly, the president's treatment of women in private is not actually that big of a deal to them. If it isn't a big deal to them, and it's THEIR FUCKING ISSUE, then why the hell should I care?
It'd be like yelling at a Democrat that they can't vote for Hillary now because her Wall Street speeches reveal she'll use executive actions to enact gun control. If you're voting for the Democrat, you either want the guns snatched, or you don't give a shit about guns anyway. It's not your issue, and not persuasive!
Article II of the constitution doesn't say anything about the Presidency being a proxy battle for gender culture wars, so I do not give a fuck one way or the other how the president treats women in private. Feminists can take their gender politics bullshit and cram it right up their pussies. Nobody else wants to grab them, that's for damn sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Scientific polling that makes voting feel meaningless
My problem with the polling is it's not really scientific. The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable. Frequently they're very unreasonable. If I made a poll for California but made my sample 80% Republicans and said "Trump will win California," would you trust it? But I could do that, say it's a "scientific poll" (because it uses numbers?) and then people would bandy it around for propaganda purposes.
The polls aren't falsifiable right now because nobody really knows what the electorate thinks right now. An awful lot of these polls comes from what are essentially advertising agencies, they're used to shape public opinion ("9 out of 10 dentists prefer anal"), going for bandwagon effect to gain support or demoralization against the other side, when no one can check their results they shape the results to whatever the people paying for the poll want, and then a week before the election they try to actually get it right so they can say "see, we're accurate, trust us next cycle!"
What about percentage-wise, though? Think celebrities split 50/50 on Clinton vs Trump?
Jerry Springer should moderate the final debate.
Only if they do a paternity test for Chelsea so Jerry can say to Bill "You are.......not the father! It's Webb Hubbell!!!"
Strange, it looks like he admitted defeat to me. Why else not agree to accept the result? That's what a child does when they know they are going to lose.
I took it as a warning to the Democrats. The Dems have a long, long history of voter fraud and Trump is putting them on notice that he's wise to their schemes, and we're not taking it this time.
It's almost as if the Bush and Clinton families are both criminal enterprises...