>Note all the idiots who keep repeating that Nazis were socialists, not because they learned this in a history book but because those are the talking points they're told to repeat.
Nazi's were certainly more socialist in terms of economic policies than say, the Democratic or Republican Parties of 1933 were.
Heck, it's almost like you are trying to ignore the fact that NAZI is a contraction of National Socialist German Workers' Party.
>Really? You're using the spectacularly dysfunctional American healthcare system as an example of capitalism _working well_? Really?!
It should be an example of socialism working really poorly, considering that over 50 cents out of every healthcare dollar is provided by some level of government, either the Federal, state, or local.
>Well, perhaps if the GOP stopped demonizing a social safety net, perhaps the term wouldn't be so muddled.
Well, if the left stopped using the social safety net as a way to buy votes and enrich their Wall Street buddies by slaking off government inefficiencies, maybe we would.
I mean, isn't it amazing how after the Affordable Care act was passed, that most publicly traded insurance companies saw their stock prices shoot through the roof? Isn't amazing that most people who already had insurance saw their premiums actually go up and their choices go down? That's the leftwing safety net experience for most people. Yeah, 10 to 15 million people at the bottom may have benefitted from it by getting access they didn't have - but the overall societal cost was way too high.
>And *regardless* of how one might think about that and her, objectively she was -- by far -- the more qualified candidate for the office of President.
This is a frequent claim by her supporters. And, on the surface, she does have a fairly impressive pedigree. Professional career as a lawyer, wife of a governor and President, US Senator, and Secretary of State. And if were just going on the jobs she's had, she would be a shoe-in. But only if you refrain from looking at the effectiveness and her judgement while in those impressive sounding roles.
What did she manage while being first and foremost the wife of Bill Clinton, the candidate and officeholder? She handled his bimbo eruptions. Secondarily to that, she was in charge of the 1993 Healthcare Reform effort, which was a political failure. And not even close to lastly, let's not forget Travelgate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy). The reality is her time as "First Lady" was marred by continual scandals and a spectacular lack of judgement leavened with quite a bit of vindictiveness.
After Bill Clinton left office and the fortuitous death of John Kennedy Jr. (who had been planning to run for NY Senate), Hillary Clinton was elected in a "gimme" race for NY Senator. What did she accomplish in her time as a Senator? Well, she voted for the Iraq war - she was for it before she was against it. But really, she had a completely lackluster and ineffectual performance as a Senator.
Then in 2008, she ran for President. Had she won the nomination, she almost certainly would have won the race due to the headwinds Republicans were facing at the time from Bush fatigue and Iraq war fatigue. But Obama usurped the nomination, and she got the consolation prize of Secretary of State. What did she accomplish as Secretary of State?
Well, there was Fast and Furious. There was the Russia "reset". There was the failure to secure the US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement, which led to the US pullout, which helped lead to the rise of ISIS. There was the Gaddafi overthrow, which turned Libya into a failed state and a safe haven for Al Qaeda terrorists. Then there was the mis-management of consulate security which led to a dead US ambassador and 3 other Americans. Then there was the intentional trafficking of Libyan weapons to Syrian militias which helped armed ISIS. Oh and let's not forget her home brew email server where she was conducting official government business along with personal business, and sending and receiving classified information in violation of policy and law. Oh and let's not forget Uranium One and Pay for Play access at the State Department.
And then there is the campaign where she called half of Trump supporters an "irredeemable basket of deplorables". Where she raised 3x as much money as Trump but never bothered to campaign in Wisconsin. And managed to lose.
So, in summary, a lot of people looked at Hillary Clinton's resume and concluded she's been continually plagued by spectacularly bad judgement calls, bad politics, bullying behavior (see Travelgate again), and not really any notable positive accomplishments when she was in positions of influence - and they said, no, I'm going to vote for someone else.
After her loss, her behavior has pretty much confirmed that the US made the right decision. She's been bitter, vindictive, and failed to take any responsibility for the loss on her actions. Note, that had she won, she wouldn't have been any different. She's still be bitter, and vindictive, but she would have the full power of the US government to punish her "enemies".
So you don't think there was any possibility of malfeasance on the part of the actions of Loretta Lynch, nor a legitimate reason to call her before Congress to testify on those things?
Also, Loretta Lynch is a fairly high level lawyer. Zuckerberg is not.
>The Congress isn't interested in the Truth, they will just try to trick you into saying something criminal.
No, that's the FBI. Congress has very little teeth when it comes to criminality on the part of people who testify in front of Congress...or refuse to do so. Just ask Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, or Lois Lerner.
Jupiter probably almost certainly has a sizable metallic core. That core is almost certainly molten given the temperatures involved (unless there is some sort of weird convection / insulation going on).
At a certain point, you will realize you have more good days behind you than ahead of you. Each day further represents more doors closing behind you. Options that not only won't be explored, but couldn't be if you changed your mind.
You hit a wall where your body betrays you, every waking moment is painful, maybe even agonizing. You lose your own personal mobility. Your mind betrays you, you can't hold together your own thoughts or memories. You are socially isolated. Your kids have grown up, left, have their own kids, and you are a holiday or birthday afterthought. Or maybe you didn't have kids at all, and your friends moved away, or died, and you are just waiting your turn.
That's not the experience for everyone, but it's the experience for a lot of elderly, and for those people, death is a release.
>But the idea that it's what causes hours long waits at minority polling stations is a fantasy.
Not my claim. My claim is that illegal voting, vote tampering, vote fraud, and election fraud are much more prevalent than either side, and especially the Democrats, will admit to, because to do so would undermine the entire political process and legitimacy of the government.
>Except that all investigations into this show that citizens being prevented from voting occurs orders of magnitude more than illegal voting.
Cite please. And not the kind of cite where people claim they were prevented from voting.
>No, you know perfectly well that the purpose of stricter voting regulation is to block more potentially democrats from voting.
Only if those "democrats" are ineligible to vote. Most Americans want more than just the pro-forma "are you a US citizen" check for elections that Democrats seem to want.
Slashdot Mirror
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is suspended in fantasy and space opera.
>Note all the idiots who keep repeating that Nazis were socialists, not because they learned this in a history book but because those are the talking points they're told to repeat. Nazi's were certainly more socialist in terms of economic policies than say, the Democratic or Republican Parties of 1933 were.
Heck, it's almost like you are trying to ignore the fact that NAZI is a contraction of National Socialist German Workers' Party.
>Really? You're using the spectacularly dysfunctional American healthcare system as an example of capitalism _working well_? Really?!
It should be an example of socialism working really poorly, considering that over 50 cents out of every healthcare dollar is provided by some level of government, either the Federal, state, or local.
>Well, most capitalist companies also have their finite life time.
Everything has a finite lifetime, including the observable universe.
The question is why are co-ops unable to scale in effectiveness once you get past the local?
>Well, perhaps if the GOP stopped demonizing a social safety net, perhaps the term wouldn't be so muddled.
Well, if the left stopped using the social safety net as a way to buy votes and enrich their Wall Street buddies by slaking off government inefficiencies, maybe we would.
I mean, isn't it amazing how after the Affordable Care act was passed, that most publicly traded insurance companies saw their stock prices shoot through the roof? Isn't amazing that most people who already had insurance saw their premiums actually go up and their choices go down? That's the leftwing safety net experience for most people. Yeah, 10 to 15 million people at the bottom may have benefitted from it by getting access they didn't have - but the overall societal cost was way too high.
for the stuff you want is always an attractive idea.
Yep.
Abraham Lincoln: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
Maybe there was a word limit on the article and the editor changed "incredible composure and presence of mind" to "bravely".
I'm sure Trump's secret police are coming for you any day now.
>And *regardless* of how one might think about that and her, objectively she was -- by far -- the more qualified candidate for the office of President.
This is a frequent claim by her supporters. And, on the surface, she does have a fairly impressive pedigree. Professional career as a lawyer, wife of a governor and President, US Senator, and Secretary of State. And if were just going on the jobs she's had, she would be a shoe-in. But only if you refrain from looking at the effectiveness and her judgement while in those impressive sounding roles.
What did she manage while being first and foremost the wife of Bill Clinton, the candidate and officeholder? She handled his bimbo eruptions. Secondarily to that, she was in charge of the 1993 Healthcare Reform effort, which was a political failure. And not even close to lastly, let's not forget Travelgate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy). The reality is her time as "First Lady" was marred by continual scandals and a spectacular lack of judgement leavened with quite a bit of vindictiveness.
After Bill Clinton left office and the fortuitous death of John Kennedy Jr. (who had been planning to run for NY Senate), Hillary Clinton was elected in a "gimme" race for NY Senator. What did she accomplish in her time as a Senator? Well, she voted for the Iraq war - she was for it before she was against it. But really, she had a completely lackluster and ineffectual performance as a Senator.
Then in 2008, she ran for President. Had she won the nomination, she almost certainly would have won the race due to the headwinds Republicans were facing at the time from Bush fatigue and Iraq war fatigue. But Obama usurped the nomination, and she got the consolation prize of Secretary of State. What did she accomplish as Secretary of State?
Well, there was Fast and Furious. There was the Russia "reset". There was the failure to secure the US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement, which led to the US pullout, which helped lead to the rise of ISIS. There was the Gaddafi overthrow, which turned Libya into a failed state and a safe haven for Al Qaeda terrorists. Then there was the mis-management of consulate security which led to a dead US ambassador and 3 other Americans. Then there was the intentional trafficking of Libyan weapons to Syrian militias which helped armed ISIS. Oh and let's not forget her home brew email server where she was conducting official government business along with personal business, and sending and receiving classified information in violation of policy and law. Oh and let's not forget Uranium One and Pay for Play access at the State Department.
And then there is the campaign where she called half of Trump supporters an "irredeemable basket of deplorables". Where she raised 3x as much money as Trump but never bothered to campaign in Wisconsin. And managed to lose.
So, in summary, a lot of people looked at Hillary Clinton's resume and concluded she's been continually plagued by spectacularly bad judgement calls, bad politics, bullying behavior (see Travelgate again), and not really any notable positive accomplishments when she was in positions of influence - and they said, no, I'm going to vote for someone else.
After her loss, her behavior has pretty much confirmed that the US made the right decision. She's been bitter, vindictive, and failed to take any responsibility for the loss on her actions. Note, that had she won, she wouldn't have been any different. She's still be bitter, and vindictive, but she would have the full power of the US government to punish her "enemies".
So you don't think there was any possibility of malfeasance on the part of the actions of Loretta Lynch, nor a legitimate reason to call her before Congress to testify on those things?
Also, Loretta Lynch is a fairly high level lawyer. Zuckerberg is not.
>The Congress isn't interested in the Truth, they will just try to trick you into saying something criminal.
No, that's the FBI. Congress has very little teeth when it comes to criminality on the part of people who testify in front of Congress...or refuse to do so. Just ask Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, or Lois Lerner.
>My model is Loretta Lynch. She was just unflappable.
Your model for what? How to cover up criminal activity on the part of a rogue, lawless administration?
I tried reading this several times, and still wasn't able to figure out what your point was.
He's not wrong. It happens at a lot of companies when an Indian takes over the top spot.
Proving cost avoidance in ROI terms is hard.
Jupiter probably almost certainly has a sizable metallic core. That core is almost certainly molten given the temperatures involved (unless there is some sort of weird convection / insulation going on).
Better to be a warrior in a farm than a farmer in a war, and better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one.
If that was the case, then Hillary and Obama would be in prison.
Are really just "objectionable" from a particular point of view.
No, it's a combination of more factors than that.
Getting older sucks.
At a certain point, you will realize you have more good days behind you than ahead of you. Each day further represents more doors closing behind you. Options that not only won't be explored, but couldn't be if you changed your mind.
You hit a wall where your body betrays you, every waking moment is painful, maybe even agonizing. You lose your own personal mobility. Your mind betrays you, you can't hold together your own thoughts or memories. You are socially isolated. Your kids have grown up, left, have their own kids, and you are a holiday or birthday afterthought. Or maybe you didn't have kids at all, and your friends moved away, or died, and you are just waiting your turn.
That's not the experience for everyone, but it's the experience for a lot of elderly, and for those people, death is a release.
>you have not shown any evidence that bears on prevalence of dead voter type fraud, only that it exists, which nobody would deny.
In order to determine prevalence of dead/illegal vote fraud, it would be necessary for there to be a comprehensive and honest investigation into it.
>But the idea that it's what causes hours long waits at minority polling stations is a fantasy.
Not my claim. My claim is that illegal voting, vote tampering, vote fraud, and election fraud are much more prevalent than either side, and especially the Democrats, will admit to, because to do so would undermine the entire political process and legitimacy of the government.
>Except that all investigations into this show that citizens being prevented from voting occurs orders of magnitude more than illegal voting.
Cite please. And not the kind of cite where people claim they were prevented from voting.
>No, you know perfectly well that the purpose of stricter voting regulation is to block more potentially democrats from voting.
Only if those "democrats" are ineligible to vote. Most Americans want more than just the pro-forma "are you a US citizen" check for elections that Democrats seem to want.
What's wrong with Citizens United? Or should we only get our political news from the media?