"Ideology I don't like will advocate something dumb because of course they will because I'm on the other team". Then "it's a race issue cause I want it to be"
The only loophole here is that the "idiot branch" of conservatism gives you a loophole to feel insightful.
So it's the politically incorrect angle that is getting him this support? The "not of government" angle is bullshit as his multiple files for bankruptcy only helped increase his wealth, He isnt small government at all which is why it baffles me he gets any libertarian supporters at all. Why not vote for a communist who promises to keep all the foreigners away? I suppose I shouldnt be surprised as so many people I meet seem to not be able to rationalize their political choices in any meaningful context, including those within the generally left wing category I fall in.
Wow, that is not similiar to my experience at all. I don't know a single Democrat who finds him even acceptable as president while the few libertarians I know seem to love him. Likewise I've seen articles like the above pop up a few times.
Maybe It's a regional thing. I'm in Northern California.
I suppose the labor end of the Democratic party might subscribe to his politics but I put myself a good bit in that group and aside from his objections to the two major trade treaties currently floating out there I find him appalling.
Can anyone explain to me why so many libertarians seem to support Trump? He's not small government at all. He even just recently stated that taxes"may need to go up" for high wage earners.
For starters, if people were plugged into a good enough virtual reality no one would have any interest in any interacting with the real world beyond maintaining the VR. Maybe a few here and there but not enough to be noticeable to the rest of the universe.
Second, the hell on earth end game doesn't add up. The wealthy would most assuredly exist in a VR paradise rather than the real world and given sufficient technological advancement there would be no use for anyone else. They'd all be killed.
Either way it's the same end game. One is just better for the common folk than the other.
What the hell are you talking about? For starters, yes China does have their own version of the FDA but they clearly do a terrible job. Tons of products such as infant formula are actively sought after from foreign markets as Chinese consumers dont trust their domestic goods. I read about major food scandals in China every few months that dwarf anything that happens in Western nations.
So yes, technically the above poster is wrong but what's with all this narcissist garbage?
Except the likely end game for any advanced civilization is a matrix like existence where everything is great and there's no evil AI. Why would any civilization stay existing in the real world if they could plug everyone's brain into a paradise? Why would we know about these civilizations?
Yes, but my point is that it's an accomplishment without any real effect. As I said before, it was probably a very fulfilling accomplishment doing that but at the end of the day it has no broad implications for anyone. My Thai cooking has really been fucking spot on lately but I don't think that's news worthy either.
I guess I can see how making an obsolete OS run on a modern device as something that would be fulfilling but I fail to see how that would be important news to anyone.
I consider it a lock hecause as I stated before, in the unlikely case that it goes to a second round of voting they have no other strong canidates besides Cruz and many find him as objectionable as Trump. Why go against popular will to bring in a different canidate that you also dont like?
Trump is extremely likely to get the 1237 he needs at this point. He has all of the momentum and it's not as if there's going to be a "controversy" that brings him down. As we've all seen he appears to be "controversy" proof. Also, even if he doesnt get the the 1237 votes the Republican party would be fools to not endorse a candidate that has such a clear majority of votes.
And who would they go with? Cruz? He isnt any more popular among many of the Republican establishment than Trump is.
I dont think theres all that much cross over at all between supporters. They're very different canidates. Chris Christie is an Republican establishment moderate. Trump is most certainly not establishment and while he's moderate on some issues it's not at all where Christie is. For example, Christie has never even approached the "deport 11 million illegals" that Trump advocates. A women would probably be the best for Trump but he could do a lot worse than Christie precisely because of the fact that he's a centrist and that is not at all the catagory Trumps core supports are in.
Please, how much money do you want to bet that Trump won't get the Republican nomination at this point? Whatever it is I'll see it. He has it locked down at this point. The "controversy" is a media invention designed to get readers. It doesnt really exist.
Out of curiosity, what ads are you seeing on youtube that arent appropriate for kids to see? I can't think of any I've seen. On the other hand I don't have kids so I don't look for or think about such things too much so maybe I'm just not noticing.
"Danny Yadron, said, "What's worse for a Silicon Valley executive: ties to the Chinese military or friends in the US Defense Department?""
Easy, ties to the Chinese Military are worse. The US Defense Department at least answers to a democratically elected government.
Dont get me wrong, the US government is far from an angel but out government does answer to its governed people at least on some level and we don't also claim massive amounts of ocean space belonging to other nations as our own.
Why are you framing this debate as a black and white two option debate? All Western countries are grades of capitalism and socialism and they're all more or less ruled in the context of Republican governace. You're mistaken if you think the US system is some sort of idiologic pure form
Oh yes, wonderfull graph, that. If it's in a graph it has to be right. Those highly meaningfull numbers on the left that arent broken down at all mean that Nixon was over.9 more conservative than LBJ!
There's no explenation as to why these numbers are what they are and the article you implied you read even says that the scores are kind of arbitrary. Furthermore, labeling Clinton that far to the Left? What the heck did he ever do during his presidency that puts him that far to the Left? I'm not saying Nixon wasnt conservative in many ways, I'm only refuting your "uber Republican" label for the man who founded the EPA.
You seem to be running with a fixed definition for party ideology based on today's standards. The republican party under Lincoln is not at all the same as today's. Shoot, the modern Republican party doesn't even represent the same geographic regions as Lincoln's. It represents almost the exact opposite in fact.
Also, that Washington post article you posted along with your claim that Nixon wasnt a moderate has nothing to do with Nixon. It's an article about Obama. Just because it has Nixon's name in it a single time doesnt mean it's about him.
Slashdot Mirror
It'll be yours some day.
You're an idiot.
"Ideology I don't like will advocate something dumb because of course they will because I'm on the other team". Then "it's a race issue cause I want it to be"
The only loophole here is that the "idiot branch" of conservatism gives you a loophole to feel insightful.
Just make it a chatbot that responds to key terms "bacon" or "cheese" with "yes, more please" and you've got a winner!
So it's the politically incorrect angle that is getting him this support? The "not of government" angle is bullshit as his multiple files for bankruptcy only helped increase his wealth, He isnt small government at all which is why it baffles me he gets any libertarian supporters at all. Why not vote for a communist who promises to keep all the foreigners away? I suppose I shouldnt be surprised as so many people I meet seem to not be able to rationalize their political choices in any meaningful context, including those within the generally left wing category I fall in.
Wow, that is not similiar to my experience at all. I don't know a single Democrat who finds him even acceptable as president while the few libertarians I know seem to love him. Likewise I've seen articles like the above pop up a few times.
Maybe It's a regional thing. I'm in Northern California.
I suppose the labor end of the Democratic party might subscribe to his politics but I put myself a good bit in that group and aside from his objections to the two major trade treaties currently floating out there I find him appalling.
Can anyone explain to me why so many libertarians seem to support Trump? He's not small government at all. He even just recently stated that taxes"may need to go up" for high wage earners.
Man, if that's enough for you to give a thumbs down to an entire product I cant imagine you watch any sort of modern action movies
For starters, if people were plugged into a good enough virtual reality no one would have any interest in any interacting with the real world beyond maintaining the VR. Maybe a few here and there but not enough to be noticeable to the rest of the universe.
Second, the hell on earth end game doesn't add up. The wealthy would most assuredly exist in a VR paradise rather than the real world and given sufficient technological advancement there would be no use for anyone else. They'd all be killed.
Either way it's the same end game. One is just better for the common folk than the other.
Nope, I still have the option when I'm logged in.
I get mod points all the time. Stop being a negative nancy.
What the hell are you talking about? For starters, yes China does have their own version of the FDA but they clearly do a terrible job. Tons of products such as infant formula are actively sought after from foreign markets as Chinese consumers dont trust their domestic goods. I read about major food scandals in China every few months that dwarf anything that happens in Western nations.
So yes, technically the above poster is wrong but what's with all this narcissist garbage?
Except the likely end game for any advanced civilization is a matrix like existence where everything is great and there's no evil AI. Why would any civilization stay existing in the real world if they could plug everyone's brain into a paradise? Why would we know about these civilizations?
Yes, but my point is that it's an accomplishment without any real effect. As I said before, it was probably a very fulfilling accomplishment doing that but at the end of the day it has no broad implications for anyone. My Thai cooking has really been fucking spot on lately but I don't think that's news worthy either.
And I masturbated tonight. Where's the news?
I guess I can see how making an obsolete OS run on a modern device as something that would be fulfilling but I fail to see how that would be important news to anyone.
I consider it a lock hecause as I stated before, in the unlikely case that it goes to a second round of voting they have no other strong canidates besides Cruz and many find him as objectionable as Trump. Why go against popular will to bring in a different canidate that you also dont like?
Trump is extremely likely to get the 1237 he needs at this point. He has all of the momentum and it's not as if there's going to be a "controversy" that brings him down. As we've all seen he appears to be "controversy" proof. Also, even if he doesnt get the the 1237 votes the Republican party would be fools to not endorse a candidate that has such a clear majority of votes.
And who would they go with? Cruz? He isnt any more popular among many of the Republican establishment than Trump is.
Replied to the wrong comment. No idea how that happened but sorry about that.
I dont think theres all that much cross over at all between supporters. They're very different canidates. Chris Christie is an Republican establishment moderate. Trump is most certainly not establishment and while he's moderate on some issues it's not at all where Christie is. For example, Christie has never even approached the "deport 11 million illegals" that Trump advocates. A women would probably be the best for Trump but he could do a lot worse than Christie precisely because of the fact that he's a centrist and that is not at all the catagory Trumps core supports are in.
Chris Christie has already sold his soul to Trump for a shot at the VP spot.
Please, how much money do you want to bet that Trump won't get the Republican nomination at this point? Whatever it is I'll see it. He has it locked down at this point. The "controversy" is a media invention designed to get readers. It doesnt really exist.
Out of curiosity, what ads are you seeing on youtube that arent appropriate for kids to see? I can't think of any I've seen. On the other hand I don't have kids so I don't look for or think about such things too much so maybe I'm just not noticing.
"Danny Yadron, said, "What's worse for a Silicon Valley executive: ties to the Chinese military or friends in the US Defense Department?""
Easy, ties to the Chinese Military are worse. The US Defense Department at least answers to a democratically elected government.
Dont get me wrong, the US government is far from an angel but out government does answer to its governed people at least on some level and we don't also claim massive amounts of ocean space belonging to other nations as our own.
Really, what a dumb question to ask...
Why are you framing this debate as a black and white two option debate? All Western countries are grades of capitalism and socialism and they're all more or less ruled in the context of Republican governace. You're mistaken if you think the US system is some sort of idiologic pure form
Oh yes, wonderfull graph, that. If it's in a graph it has to be right. Those highly meaningfull numbers on the left that arent broken down at all mean that Nixon was over .9 more conservative than LBJ!
There's no explenation as to why these numbers are what they are and the article you implied you read even says that the scores are kind of arbitrary. Furthermore, labeling Clinton that far to the Left? What the heck did he ever do during his presidency that puts him that far to the Left? I'm not saying Nixon wasnt conservative in many ways, I'm only refuting your "uber Republican" label for the man who founded the EPA.
You seem to be running with a fixed definition for party ideology based on today's standards. The republican party under Lincoln is not at all the same as today's. Shoot, the modern Republican party doesn't even represent the same geographic regions as Lincoln's. It represents almost the exact opposite in fact.
Also, that Washington post article you posted along with your claim that Nixon wasnt a moderate has nothing to do with Nixon. It's an article about Obama. Just because it has Nixon's name in it a single time doesnt mean it's about him.