There might be sensitive or personal information that he doesn't think should be made public
Since when has that stopped him?
The ONLY consideration on his part is whether he's got his hands on something he can personally leverage to improve his own situation and stick himself back into public focus.
All of the Birkenstock wearing hippies will have to buy their overpriced status symbols somewhere else. The horror!
The issue here, really, was that some vendors were actually willing to discount Birkenstock products instead of sticking to full retail price - and that made BIrkenstock's brick-and-mortar and small-web-site retailers cranky. So Birkenstock would rather lose a huge outlet for their products than lose a lot of smaller ones that don't want to compete on price. That's their call. But this is only marginally if at all about knock-offs. This is about competition and price, and Birkenstock is chopping off a venue where shoppers might save a few dollars on shoes so they could spend it on tofu instead.
Sure a filter that spares you from having to read the words in front of you would make it a little quicker. But there is no way to purchase from a third party vendor at Amazon without knowing that's exactly what you're doing. If you don't like third party sellers, don't click "Add To Cart" on those items. How hard is that, really?
Right there in front of you in writing are instructions on how to have UPS stop at your door and pick up the item you're returning. Yes, it's a shame an unscrupulous third party sold you a counterfeit item. But don't pretend Amazon doesn't have mechanisms in place to have that UPS driver pick up your return. They do it every day.
Clearly an idea by someone who has no clue about religious sensitivities, congregations, and the like.
Would those be the delicate religious sensitivities that already have huge numbers of congregations helping to fund their tax-free social club by renting out space for cell phone antenna clusters? Those religious sensitivities? Please.
Or, maybe he's just tired of the current executive branch's toxic mishandling of everything they touch, and the damage that does to US-based businesses and workers and the money they all have to spend on what businesses have to sell?
Right. There's a big difference between being a "disaster for innovation" and being "annoying because innovation may cost a bit more because we can't import indentured tech servants to replace local professionals that were forced to train their foreign replacements."
Mitigating his central point by dismissively pointing out things he thinks are meaningless doesn't really change his central point, does it? He knows that stuff, and doesn't care. Doesn't think they matter, and is telling you, if you care about the person chosen, that you're a "dumb fuck." How much more about his take on things do you need to grasp what he thinks of you?
I don't think either one has any major health problems
Not counting Clinton's serious brain problem, which put her out of action for quite a while, nearly killed her, and forced her to wear ultra-heavy glasses to pull her eyesight back into alignment. And, of course, have you watched any of her several uncontrollable coughing fits, bad enough that she's had to leave the stage where she's appearing? Neither are spring chickens, but I think she has more miles on her, health-wise.
How does that not make him a part of the ruling class?
Because all the actual, real members of the ruling class hate him. There are plenty of people as rich or wildly richer than Trump. Unlike many of them, he hasn't been hip-deep in real politics all his adult life. He's a fairly successful person with an outlook on life that is shared by millions of people, and an awareness (say, halfway through his life) that his own success could be bolstered by adding "entertainer" to his box of tricks. But if he's "ruling class," then so is Michael Jordan, Steven Spielberg, Taylor Swift, Richard Branson, or JK Rowling. "Running in the same circles" isn't even vaguely like being, say, a Clinton.
You make it sound as though the POTUS is single-handedly capable of launching nukes. Have you considered looking into how it actually works? You know, just so you don't sound like such a crank?
Anyone that reacts to a VP pick is a dumb fuck. VP is literally the most meaningless position in our government.
Unless you're president Kennedy. Or president Nixon. Or unless the VP needs to cast a deciding vote on some very serious matter before the Senate (you do know that's part of the job, right?).
The color of the socks you wear when you vote should have more role in the choice than who the VP is.
I don't know, I can think of a couple of recent presidential candidates who really did themselves some self-inflicted wounds through their choice of VP candidate. McCain should have made a better choice than Palin - she was toxic. And Kerry did NOT help establish his own judgement skills by picking an ambulance chasing sleazeball frat boy lawyer (John Edwards) as his choice. These people DO matter. They are one stroke or fall down the stairs from being in charge of the executive branch of the government. You get that, right?
And still, again, regardless of how you describe yourself, avoiding the truth: you are supporting a corrupt person with a long and demonstrated track record of deliberately looking you in the eye and lying about everything from her motivations to her practices, to the particulars of her travels (quick! duck that sniper fire!) and even who she was named after. She's pathological about it, demonstrably incompetent, and you are looking to give her the power of the most important executive office on the planet. You will now change the subject once again as away to avoid acknowledging that.
I know it's embarrassing to you when the head of the Democrat party, in her role as the Speaker Of The House and the person who is completely in charge of the legislative agenda surrounding the bill in question gets up at her podium in an official press event and says that to you and me and everyone else on video... I know you find that awkward. And I understand that your instinctive liberal reaction is to wish the facts away so that you can pretend the person in charge of the congressional process of writing and handling that bill didn't actually say those words and cheerfully in many other settings convey the same sentiment. I know you wish that hadn't happened. But lazily attacking the person who reminds you of that, doesn't that ever get to you? Don't you ever wince when you try that craven bit of juvenile ad hominen in an effort to alter reality?
And why should we believe your concocted story?
I know, you want us all to believe that you consider the Congressional Record to be a concoction. The question is, who do you think is so dumb that they'll fall for your lazy attempt to distract? The bill in question was a disaster from conception to execution. The principal players involved in ramming it through knew that, lied about it repeatedly, and are well aware of the damage it would do and has done. Just like you. You will now once again try to tap-dance around the actual facts on the ground, and try some more childish foot-stomping. Carry on!
Hillary has proven that she can drive people like you nuts by simply existing. Another reason to vote for her.
Yup, classic liberal response. At all costs, avoid the actual substance of the matter. She's shown to be corrupt liar? Quick! Attack the person who relays that information! Whatever you do, be sure not to address her policy mis-steps in State, be sure not to address the laundry list of lies the FBI just put in front of you, be sure not to address the huge cash grab she and her husband have made from governments that happened to just get a visit from Clinton as SoS that same week. Don't talk about those things! Don't even LOOK at those things! Instead, make juvenile comments about the people who challenge you to speak about them. At least the Shillaries are consistent in how they confront her track record: they use her own very well tested tactic, which is to attempt to kill the messenger and hope nobody remembers to look at the facts, as damaging as they are. We get it. You're devoted to a corrupt liar, and are here to try to brow-beat people into shutting up about it. Have fun with that!
The Republicans refused to vote on the final bill because they knew the Democrats had enough votes to pass it.
They didn't refuse to vote on it. Stop lying. They voted AGAINST it, for all of the reasons they articulated despite Reid's and Pelosi's every attempt to obfuscate and hide the nature of the bill, and Obama's choice to repeatedly lie about its content and consequences. The Republicans were, across the board, aware of what a disaster it would be, just as it has turned out. They had plenty of suggestions about things that would hugely mitigate that disaster, but Pelosi and Reid kept those pieces of the bill, and even simply kept Republican lawmakers from even participating in the closed-door sessions drafting the bill they then said we'd have to pass before we could see. The Republicans didn't "get their goodies," they had to vote 100% against the bill because the only goodies that would have made a lick of difference were completely ruled out by Obama and Pelosi as off limits: shopping for insurance across state lines, dealing with tort reform, etc.
Your whole "they chose not to vote on it" is just fabricated out of thin air. Why BS about something so demonstrably false? They (the Democrats) had enough trouble even getting all of their own party to vote in favor of the bill, as many of the more intellectual honest in their own camp expressed prescient and accurate misgivings about the wreckage it would cause.
Exactly! She's proven to make terrible policy decisions/recommendations as Secretary of State. She'd proven to use that office to rake in millions of dollars for her family. She's proven to be a largely ineffectual senator. She's proven to get involved in one failure and scandal after another while playing roles in her husband's tenure as president. She's proven to be (at best) extremely careless in handling top secret and even above-top-secret information. She's proven willing to lie, over and over again, about her conduct and even the basic demonstrable facts in front of you. That certainly is a "government track record," isn't it? The question is why you think people reading what you say are so dumb that you think they won't notice your unwillingness to actually comment on the specifics of that record, instead of cravenly uttering that she simply HAS a track record. Of course she has a track record. You're just trying to skip over the part where it's a terrible one.
You mean, like when they rammed through Obamacare on a bunch of deliberate, knowing lies, and did so without being able to muster a single vote of support from the Republican party because their opposition knew it would be the disaster it's turned out to be? A law that the Democrats said would have to be passed before we could know what's in it? Where was their compromise on the single thing they bothered to do while they held both the executive and legislative branches? They weren't willing to compromise, created a monstrosity, and lost their control of the legislature BECAUSE they weren't willing to be reasonable on the matter. Your narrative is, as you know, false on the face of it.
You're welcome to think so! Plenty of people do. Just don't explain that your preference is instead for a demonstrable liar, someone who rakes in millions of dollars for her family business while on the clock for the taxpayer, someone who demonstrated a nearly complete failure in her role as the nation's top diplomat, and who looks you and her fellow supporters in the eye and just plain lies, repeatedly, about even trivial stuff that she has no reason to lie about (to say nothing of the big stuff)... just don't say you're OK with settling for her without coming out and saying that you acknowledge all of that and embrace it in the person you want leading the executive branch and dealing with our entire security apparatus and law enforcement.
Where I use most as "more than 50%" and failures as "no longer in business/technically in business but not delivering any product/service".
How much more than 50%? And is that a count of the business entities in question, or a rating of their (one-time, or whatever) worth as a function of his overall holdings and activity? Over 80% of all businesses fail outright, and of those that remain, many have their activity shut down over time because the business moves the activity into some other entity or simply gets out of that line of work, etc. If his ventures fail at a rate of less than 75%, he's doing better than most of the business world.
Slashdot Mirror
There might be sensitive or personal information that he doesn't think should be made public
Since when has that stopped him?
The ONLY consideration on his part is whether he's got his hands on something he can personally leverage to improve his own situation and stick himself back into public focus.
You can with Amazon. If the item is not as advertised, they step up, every time.
All of the Birkenstock wearing hippies will have to buy their overpriced status symbols somewhere else. The horror!
The issue here, really, was that some vendors were actually willing to discount Birkenstock products instead of sticking to full retail price - and that made BIrkenstock's brick-and-mortar and small-web-site retailers cranky. So Birkenstock would rather lose a huge outlet for their products than lose a lot of smaller ones that don't want to compete on price. That's their call. But this is only marginally if at all about knock-offs. This is about competition and price, and Birkenstock is chopping off a venue where shoppers might save a few dollars on shoes so they could spend it on tofu instead.
Sure a filter that spares you from having to read the words in front of you would make it a little quicker. But there is no way to purchase from a third party vendor at Amazon without knowing that's exactly what you're doing. If you don't like third party sellers, don't click "Add To Cart" on those items. How hard is that, really?
Right there in front of you in writing are instructions on how to have UPS stop at your door and pick up the item you're returning. Yes, it's a shame an unscrupulous third party sold you a counterfeit item. But don't pretend Amazon doesn't have mechanisms in place to have that UPS driver pick up your return. They do it every day.
Yet again..ASN.1 rears it's head.
And the hackers are already using that vulnerability to insert random apostrophes into posts made from mobile devices.
Clearly an idea by someone who has no clue about religious sensitivities, congregations, and the like.
Would those be the delicate religious sensitivities that already have huge numbers of congregations helping to fund their tax-free social club by renting out space for cell phone antenna clusters? Those religious sensitivities? Please.
Or, maybe he's just tired of the current executive branch's toxic mishandling of everything they touch, and the damage that does to US-based businesses and workers and the money they all have to spend on what businesses have to sell?
Right. There's a big difference between being a "disaster for innovation" and being "annoying because innovation may cost a bit more because we can't import indentured tech servants to replace local professionals that were forced to train their foreign replacements."
Mitigating his central point by dismissively pointing out things he thinks are meaningless doesn't really change his central point, does it? He knows that stuff, and doesn't care. Doesn't think they matter, and is telling you, if you care about the person chosen, that you're a "dumb fuck." How much more about his take on things do you need to grasp what he thinks of you?
I don't think either one has any major health problems
Not counting Clinton's serious brain problem, which put her out of action for quite a while, nearly killed her, and forced her to wear ultra-heavy glasses to pull her eyesight back into alignment. And, of course, have you watched any of her several uncontrollable coughing fits, bad enough that she's had to leave the stage where she's appearing? Neither are spring chickens, but I think she has more miles on her, health-wise.
Right. He said it, and doesn't get it. Odd.
How does that not make him a part of the ruling class?
Because all the actual, real members of the ruling class hate him. There are plenty of people as rich or wildly richer than Trump. Unlike many of them, he hasn't been hip-deep in real politics all his adult life. He's a fairly successful person with an outlook on life that is shared by millions of people, and an awareness (say, halfway through his life) that his own success could be bolstered by adding "entertainer" to his box of tricks. But if he's "ruling class," then so is Michael Jordan, Steven Spielberg, Taylor Swift, Richard Branson, or JK Rowling. "Running in the same circles" isn't even vaguely like being, say, a Clinton.
You make it sound as though the POTUS is single-handedly capable of launching nukes. Have you considered looking into how it actually works? You know, just so you don't sound like such a crank?
http://www.latimes.com/politic...
Anyone that reacts to a VP pick is a dumb fuck. VP is literally the most meaningless position in our government.
Unless you're president Kennedy. Or president Nixon. Or unless the VP needs to cast a deciding vote on some very serious matter before the Senate (you do know that's part of the job, right?).
The color of the socks you wear when you vote should have more role in the choice than who the VP is.
I don't know, I can think of a couple of recent presidential candidates who really did themselves some self-inflicted wounds through their choice of VP candidate. McCain should have made a better choice than Palin - she was toxic. And Kerry did NOT help establish his own judgement skills by picking an ambulance chasing sleazeball frat boy lawyer (John Edwards) as his choice. These people DO matter. They are one stroke or fall down the stairs from being in charge of the executive branch of the government. You get that, right?
Yup, just as I expected. Thanks for 100% consistency!
And still, again, regardless of how you describe yourself, avoiding the truth: you are supporting a corrupt person with a long and demonstrated track record of deliberately looking you in the eye and lying about everything from her motivations to her practices, to the particulars of her travels (quick! duck that sniper fire!) and even who she was named after. She's pathological about it, demonstrably incompetent, and you are looking to give her the power of the most important executive office on the planet. You will now change the subject once again as away to avoid acknowledging that.
Still trying to make people believe that lie?
I know it's embarrassing to you when the head of the Democrat party, in her role as the Speaker Of The House and the person who is completely in charge of the legislative agenda surrounding the bill in question gets up at her podium in an official press event and says that to you and me and everyone else on video ... I know you find that awkward. And I understand that your instinctive liberal reaction is to wish the facts away so that you can pretend the person in charge of the congressional process of writing and handling that bill didn't actually say those words and cheerfully in many other settings convey the same sentiment. I know you wish that hadn't happened. But lazily attacking the person who reminds you of that, doesn't that ever get to you? Don't you ever wince when you try that craven bit of juvenile ad hominen in an effort to alter reality?
And why should we believe your concocted story?
I know, you want us all to believe that you consider the Congressional Record to be a concoction. The question is, who do you think is so dumb that they'll fall for your lazy attempt to distract? The bill in question was a disaster from conception to execution. The principal players involved in ramming it through knew that, lied about it repeatedly, and are well aware of the damage it would do and has done. Just like you. You will now once again try to tap-dance around the actual facts on the ground, and try some more childish foot-stomping. Carry on!
Hillary has proven that she can drive people like you nuts by simply existing. Another reason to vote for her.
Yup, classic liberal response. At all costs, avoid the actual substance of the matter. She's shown to be corrupt liar? Quick! Attack the person who relays that information! Whatever you do, be sure not to address her policy mis-steps in State, be sure not to address the laundry list of lies the FBI just put in front of you, be sure not to address the huge cash grab she and her husband have made from governments that happened to just get a visit from Clinton as SoS that same week. Don't talk about those things! Don't even LOOK at those things! Instead, make juvenile comments about the people who challenge you to speak about them. At least the Shillaries are consistent in how they confront her track record: they use her own very well tested tactic, which is to attempt to kill the messenger and hope nobody remembers to look at the facts, as damaging as they are. We get it. You're devoted to a corrupt liar, and are here to try to brow-beat people into shutting up about it. Have fun with that!
The Republicans refused to vote on the final bill because they knew the Democrats had enough votes to pass it.
They didn't refuse to vote on it. Stop lying. They voted AGAINST it, for all of the reasons they articulated despite Reid's and Pelosi's every attempt to obfuscate and hide the nature of the bill, and Obama's choice to repeatedly lie about its content and consequences. The Republicans were, across the board, aware of what a disaster it would be, just as it has turned out. They had plenty of suggestions about things that would hugely mitigate that disaster, but Pelosi and Reid kept those pieces of the bill, and even simply kept Republican lawmakers from even participating in the closed-door sessions drafting the bill they then said we'd have to pass before we could see. The Republicans didn't "get their goodies," they had to vote 100% against the bill because the only goodies that would have made a lick of difference were completely ruled out by Obama and Pelosi as off limits: shopping for insurance across state lines, dealing with tort reform, etc.
Your whole "they chose not to vote on it" is just fabricated out of thin air. Why BS about something so demonstrably false? They (the Democrats) had enough trouble even getting all of their own party to vote in favor of the bill, as many of the more intellectual honest in their own camp expressed prescient and accurate misgivings about the wreckage it would cause.
Hillary has a proven track record in government.
Exactly! She's proven to make terrible policy decisions/recommendations as Secretary of State. She'd proven to use that office to rake in millions of dollars for her family. She's proven to be a largely ineffectual senator. She's proven to get involved in one failure and scandal after another while playing roles in her husband's tenure as president. She's proven to be (at best) extremely careless in handling top secret and even above-top-secret information. She's proven willing to lie, over and over again, about her conduct and even the basic demonstrable facts in front of you. That certainly is a "government track record," isn't it? The question is why you think people reading what you say are so dumb that you think they won't notice your unwillingness to actually comment on the specifics of that record, instead of cravenly uttering that she simply HAS a track record. Of course she has a track record. You're just trying to skip over the part where it's a terrible one.
The Democrats are willing to COMPROMISE.
You mean, like when they rammed through Obamacare on a bunch of deliberate, knowing lies, and did so without being able to muster a single vote of support from the Republican party because their opposition knew it would be the disaster it's turned out to be? A law that the Democrats said would have to be passed before we could know what's in it? Where was their compromise on the single thing they bothered to do while they held both the executive and legislative branches? They weren't willing to compromise, created a monstrosity, and lost their control of the legislature BECAUSE they weren't willing to be reasonable on the matter. Your narrative is, as you know, false on the face of it.
You're welcome to think so! Plenty of people do. Just don't explain that your preference is instead for a demonstrable liar, someone who rakes in millions of dollars for her family business while on the clock for the taxpayer, someone who demonstrated a nearly complete failure in her role as the nation's top diplomat, and who looks you and her fellow supporters in the eye and just plain lies, repeatedly, about even trivial stuff that she has no reason to lie about (to say nothing of the big stuff)... just don't say you're OK with settling for her without coming out and saying that you acknowledge all of that and embrace it in the person you want leading the executive branch and dealing with our entire security apparatus and law enforcement.
Where I use most as "more than 50%" and failures as "no longer in business/technically in business but not delivering any product/service".
How much more than 50%? And is that a count of the business entities in question, or a rating of their (one-time, or whatever) worth as a function of his overall holdings and activity? Over 80% of all businesses fail outright, and of those that remain, many have their activity shut down over time because the business moves the activity into some other entity or simply gets out of that line of work, etc. If his ventures fail at a rate of less than 75%, he's doing better than most of the business world.