When you post, and then smile at yourself, does some little voice in your head say, "There! I've finally managed to explain my position on supporting Hillary Clinton while managing to avoid saying anything concrete!" And then you go and pat yourself on the back? Is that how it goes?
If the Russians wanted to help Trump they would release some "they weren't classified when on my server" emails that they got from her bathroom server.
Whether or not they have them, there's no need. The FBI has already said that Clinton was lying about that, and they have the evidence to prove it. They just don't have Clinton's leverage with the Obama administration, so no prosecution for that act and the lie told to cover it up - even though anyone else would be in deep legal trouble for doing exactly the same.
Hey, look! He still can't put together a coherent thought on the subject matter, and is still deflecting with juvenile ad hominem. Carry on! The party you're working for happens to be exhibiting a great display of just your sort of incoherence already in Philadelphia - I'm sure you're tuned in for marching orders. Have fun!
That's because they don't fly through populated areas.
What? People operate these machines in suburban and busy areas all the time. Millions of them. Most operators are very casual and have very little skill, while using easy-to-fail devices with little or no redundancy or ability to tolerate even mild LiPo failure. And despite all of that, all of the mayhem that the hand-wringing nanny-staters keep talking about... doesn't happen.
It's funny because the question is preposterous. If you allowed your dog to run loose in your front yard, and asked a pizza delivery guy to leave food on your front porch where the dog could get to it, would you be questioning the viability of this fancy new "people delivery pizza using cars" technology? No? I see.
If drone delivery becomes common, is there going to be a problem with drones falling from the sky and hitting people on the head?
Have you been worrying yourself about ground-based delivery and shipping vehicles striking and killing people? No? Why not? Road-related injuries and deaths happen all the time, and some of them involve commercial delivery vehicles.
In the meantime, millions of people fly remotely operated small aircraft, with untold millions of hours in the air and more or less statistically non-existent rate of people on the ground getting hurt. And that hasn't even really involved more expense, professionally operated machines with built-in redundancies and higher quality motors and batteries.
There are much more realistic things to think about. For example, tens of thousands of people die every year in easily prevented medical mistakes in hospitals.
Hey, look! More lazy ad hominem and STILL no ability to articulate a single salient point! The only person with a sore nerve here is the person who can't address the subject matter using his own words. The cowardice is strong in this one.
No you're not. You're unable to speak for yourself, even in a single coherent sentence that explains how you think your wasted vote will constructively work in this upcoming election. Why aren't you saying words of your own? Because you know it will sound like the nonsense it is, and you're trying to use someone else as cover so you can pretend you're not part of that craven charade. You're putting on a transparent veneer of condescending smugness in an attempt to avoid explaining your position, and greatly annoyed that someone isn't falling for the lazy theatrics.
Wake me up when you summon the intellectual courage to form a single sentence of your own that is anything other than lazy, craven ad hominem designed to avoid speaking to the facts. Guess I'll get a good night's sleep, since your only response is to punt to someone else. Your lack of backbone in that area is right in keeping with your unwillingness to face the consequences of deliberately wasting your vote in the general election. But you just carry on, throw some more juvenile personal bile - you clearly think that's what best expresses your character and convictions.
But it IS your problem. You know that the person you are voting for will not get the job. That isn't even debatable. Not voting for a person who can realistically prevent her from getting the power she wants IS voting for her.
Hey, look! Leading off with more deflection and ad hominem! At least you're right on track with with not caring that she lies, though. Any guilt you may feel about helping her to get elected, though - that's entirely on you. Your phony umbrage isn't very convincing. You want her to be elected, and you're just faking it with the noble third party nonsense. You know perfectly well that the alternatives are completely unelectable. So you are taking actions that will put Hillary Clinton in power. Simple as that. If you actually have the ethics to feel guilty about that, perhaps you have some redeeming qualities after all and just need to work out your baked-in mixed premises and contradictions. Otherwise, your delusion that voting for a guaranteed loser will somehow help things is, well, delusional.
I take all of your vitriol and ad hominem in the context of that delusional perspective, of course. If you're going to be irrational with your vote, it's not surprising that you have an irrational understanding of how to persuade others embrace your world view.
Your entire shtick is so revealing. Thanks for letting other people see and confirm it. And man! you are such a baby! I thought the other guy was bad. I really wish you could step out and see yourself. It would make you gag.
Hey, look! More substance-less ad hominem that lacks even one example of what's "revealed" or any specificity of any kind. Just more hand-waving vague distraction in an attempt to get away from the matter at hand. Thanks for wrapping up the same way you started, just for consistency's sake.
Has it occurred to you that one of the reasons you have trouble finding others that resonate with your world view is that you're just a jerk? Hint: when everyone around you are assholes, you're the asshole.
Me? No. I'm watching you unable to express a single salient point on your own. Here's one you can work from: Hillary Clinton, if she were anyone else, would now at the very least be unable to get a security clearance, and she's been steadily lying to you about the circumstances around her handling, hiding and destruction of government records. This pleases you. You like that she lies to you, because you're smug enough to think that even though you know better, you're hoping that everyone else in the world is too dumb not to fall for it. Your own response, rather than being your own factual rebuttal of that characterization of her actions, will be to say that I haven't sufficiently read other material.
This is because you know she's indefensible, and you know that if you use your own words here to say that she (for example) hasn't been lying about such things, you'll be confirmed as a fool. So, of course you're deflecting and attempting to avoid going on the record. Predictable, typical, nothing new. But still entertaining in its transparency.
Hey, look! Still no substance, and more ad hominem! I do admire consistency and dedication, but less so when it's in the service of a demonstrably corrupt person like Hillary Clinton. But hey, if you're going to support her, go all the way with it, right?
Here we go with the trite dismissal of third party votes again.
I'm not dismissing those votes at all. They have a very real effect on the election. Such as helping the Clinton Machine back into executive power.
The only person being dismissive is YOU (in your assertion that those votes impact both of the larger parties in the same way, and thus don't really change anything.. THAT is dismissive).
We'll be stuck with that racist, mysoginist, xenophobe for 4 years.
Ah, I see you're one of the people pretending to actually think that, while also pretending you don't know anything about Hillary Clinton. If you're going to stay that uninformed, please don't do anything dangerous to those around you, like voting.
I'm voting for Johnson. Fuck you and your guilt-peddling.
Guilt-peddling? I'm not trying to make you feel guilty. I'm just pointing out the reality of the matter, that's all. If you feel guilty for having helped Clinton win, that's entirely up to you.
I want a clear conscience, so it's Gary Johnson/William Weld for me.
So you're voting for Hillary. How does that leave your conscience clear? She's a corrupt, lying, sociopath. And you're doing a little two-step dance as you support her quest for power.
How does the fact that someone else makes more money than you do make you a slave? Be specific. Try to be intellectually coherent, too. Oh, and while you're at it, you make more money than most people in the entire world... is your willingness to accept that money making other people slaves? No? I see.
Because if you look at who the emails are from, according to TFS, none are from Hillary. The headline is clickbait.
They're not from her, but they're directly or indirectly all ABOUT her and the DNC's unwavering Coronate Hillary position. What else did you think was going to be the focus of the matter? Yoga and wedding plans? Right.
I didn't know that nominating the primary candidate with the most votes of any party in a democratic election was a "coronation"
It has the "coronation" feel to it because it's been a foregone conclusion since before Sanders suddenly woke up one morning and decided he was a Democrat and joined the party so he could push Hillary into a more publicly-visible lefty posture. He had no chance of beating the Clinton machine and the fully assembled corporate, media, and entertainment industry backers that had already picked her, and he knew it.
Slashdot Mirror
When you post, and then smile at yourself, does some little voice in your head say, "There! I've finally managed to explain my position on supporting Hillary Clinton while managing to avoid saying anything concrete!" And then you go and pat yourself on the back? Is that how it goes?
If the Russians wanted to help Trump they would release some "they weren't classified when on my server" emails that they got from her bathroom server.
Whether or not they have them, there's no need. The FBI has already said that Clinton was lying about that, and they have the evidence to prove it. They just don't have Clinton's leverage with the Obama administration, so no prosecution for that act and the lie told to cover it up - even though anyone else would be in deep legal trouble for doing exactly the same.
Hey, look! He still can't put together a coherent thought on the subject matter, and is still deflecting with juvenile ad hominem. Carry on! The party you're working for happens to be exhibiting a great display of just your sort of incoherence already in Philadelphia - I'm sure you're tuned in for marching orders. Have fun!
That's because they don't fly through populated areas.
What? People operate these machines in suburban and busy areas all the time. Millions of them. Most operators are very casual and have very little skill, while using easy-to-fail devices with little or no redundancy or ability to tolerate even mild LiPo failure. And despite all of that, all of the mayhem that the hand-wringing nanny-staters keep talking about... doesn't happen.
It's funny because the question is preposterous. If you allowed your dog to run loose in your front yard, and asked a pizza delivery guy to leave food on your front porch where the dog could get to it, would you be questioning the viability of this fancy new "people delivery pizza using cars" technology? No? I see.
Bird strikes are actually one of the more common reasons for damage to aircraft in flight. They're not very rare, and they're not due to human error.
If drone delivery becomes common, is there going to be a problem with drones falling from the sky and hitting people on the head?
Have you been worrying yourself about ground-based delivery and shipping vehicles striking and killing people? No? Why not? Road-related injuries and deaths happen all the time, and some of them involve commercial delivery vehicles.
In the meantime, millions of people fly remotely operated small aircraft, with untold millions of hours in the air and more or less statistically non-existent rate of people on the ground getting hurt. And that hasn't even really involved more expense, professionally operated machines with built-in redundancies and higher quality motors and batteries.
There are much more realistic things to think about. For example, tens of thousands of people die every year in easily prevented medical mistakes in hospitals.
I really hit nerve with this one
Hey, look! More lazy ad hominem and STILL no ability to articulate a single salient point! The only person with a sore nerve here is the person who can't address the subject matter using his own words. The cowardice is strong in this one.
I'm letting the link speak for me
No you're not. You're unable to speak for yourself, even in a single coherent sentence that explains how you think your wasted vote will constructively work in this upcoming election. Why aren't you saying words of your own? Because you know it will sound like the nonsense it is, and you're trying to use someone else as cover so you can pretend you're not part of that craven charade. You're putting on a transparent veneer of condescending smugness in an attempt to avoid explaining your position, and greatly annoyed that someone isn't falling for the lazy theatrics.
Wake me up when you summon the intellectual courage to form a single sentence of your own that is anything other than lazy, craven ad hominem designed to avoid speaking to the facts. Guess I'll get a good night's sleep, since your only response is to punt to someone else. Your lack of backbone in that area is right in keeping with your unwillingness to face the consequences of deliberately wasting your vote in the general election. But you just carry on, throw some more juvenile personal bile - you clearly think that's what best expresses your character and convictions.
Not my problem.
But it IS your problem. You know that the person you are voting for will not get the job. That isn't even debatable. Not voting for a person who can realistically prevent her from getting the power she wants IS voting for her.
I take all of your vitriol and ad hominem in the context of that delusional perspective, of course. If you're going to be irrational with your vote, it's not surprising that you have an irrational understanding of how to persuade others embrace your world view.
Your entire shtick is so revealing. Thanks for letting other people see and confirm it. And man! you are such a baby! I thought the other guy was bad. I really wish you could step out and see yourself. It would make you gag.
Hey, look! More substance-less ad hominem that lacks even one example of what's "revealed" or any specificity of any kind. Just more hand-waving vague distraction in an attempt to get away from the matter at hand. Thanks for wrapping up the same way you started, just for consistency's sake.
Has it occurred to you that one of the reasons you have trouble finding others that resonate with your world view is that you're just a jerk? Hint: when everyone around you are assholes, you're the asshole.
Me? No. I'm watching you unable to express a single salient point on your own. Here's one you can work from: Hillary Clinton, if she were anyone else, would now at the very least be unable to get a security clearance, and she's been steadily lying to you about the circumstances around her handling, hiding and destruction of government records. This pleases you. You like that she lies to you, because you're smug enough to think that even though you know better, you're hoping that everyone else in the world is too dumb not to fall for it. Your own response, rather than being your own factual rebuttal of that characterization of her actions, will be to say that I haven't sufficiently read other material.
This is because you know she's indefensible, and you know that if you use your own words here to say that she (for example) hasn't been lying about such things, you'll be confirmed as a fool. So, of course you're deflecting and attempting to avoid going on the record. Predictable, typical, nothing new. But still entertaining in its transparency.
Nope, just watching you unable to string together a single coherent defense of Hillary Clinton in your own words. It's pretty fun, actually.
Hey look! More! Keep it up. Your illiberal masters thank you for your tireless forum trolling.
Hey, look! Still no substance, and more ad hominem! I do admire consistency and dedication, but less so when it's in the service of a demonstrably corrupt person like Hillary Clinton. But hey, if you're going to support her, go all the way with it, right?
Here we go with the trite dismissal of third party votes again.
I'm not dismissing those votes at all. They have a very real effect on the election. Such as helping the Clinton Machine back into executive power.
.. THAT is dismissive).
The only person being dismissive is YOU (in your assertion that those votes impact both of the larger parties in the same way, and thus don't really change anything
We'll be stuck with that racist, mysoginist, xenophobe for 4 years.
Ah, I see you're one of the people pretending to actually think that, while also pretending you don't know anything about Hillary Clinton. If you're going to stay that uninformed, please don't do anything dangerous to those around you, like voting.
I'm voting for Johnson. Fuck you and your guilt-peddling.
Guilt-peddling? I'm not trying to make you feel guilty. I'm just pointing out the reality of the matter, that's all. If you feel guilty for having helped Clinton win, that's entirely up to you.
I always enjoy the substance-less, ad hominem retorts that demonstrate how right I am. Thanks!
I want a clear conscience, so it's Gary Johnson/William Weld for me.
So you're voting for Hillary. How does that leave your conscience clear? She's a corrupt, lying, sociopath. And you're doing a little two-step dance as you support her quest for power.
How does the fact that someone else makes more money than you do make you a slave? Be specific. Try to be intellectually coherent, too. Oh, and while you're at it, you make more money than most people in the entire world ... is your willingness to accept that money making other people slaves? No? I see.
Because if you look at who the emails are from, according to TFS, none are from Hillary. The headline is clickbait.
They're not from her, but they're directly or indirectly all ABOUT her and the DNC's unwavering Coronate Hillary position. What else did you think was going to be the focus of the matter? Yoga and wedding plans? Right.
I didn't know that nominating the primary candidate with the most votes of any party in a democratic election was a "coronation"
It has the "coronation" feel to it because it's been a foregone conclusion since before Sanders suddenly woke up one morning and decided he was a Democrat and joined the party so he could push Hillary into a more publicly-visible lefty posture. He had no chance of beating the Clinton machine and the fully assembled corporate, media, and entertainment industry backers that had already picked her, and he knew it.