But Bill wasn't running. You don't vote for the spouse. Bill went through his trial, and the backlash led to GWB's presidency.
There are several points here.
One, the whole movement to impeach Clinton in general was viewed unfavorably by the public. He was still a popular President. If anything, Gore hurt himself by trying to distance himself from Clinton.
Second, it was advertised that you were getting Bill as part of a package deal because he was experienced and liked, and he campaigned for her.
And third, Hillary stuck by and defended her husband through all of that (and by the accounts of accusers, she viciously defended him). The emotional impact of putting the question to her during the debate would have been devastating: Was her husband fit for the Presidency?
The bottom line is that Presidential womanizing is nothing new. After the shock value of the hot mic tape wore off, it didn't factor much in how people voted.
Actually, I dropped the argument because it was going nowhere.
That's what happens when you don't respond to the sources and arguments given. You'd rather bury your head in the sand and then repeat your ignorant arguments later on.
If Islamist ideology were inherent in Islam, we would see it in all devout Muslims, and we don't. Lots of them are reasonable, and only want to get along without imposing their views on others.
Non-starter argument. There are lots of things inhereint in many ideologies that are not followed by subsets of people that nominally belong to that ideology. As just one example, America stands for liberty, but you can find plenty of Americans who don't give two shits about it.
We would see it in all periods of history, and we don't.
Well if you checked the sources I gave last time, you'd find the vast majority of time Islam was militant, expansionist, and authoritarian. But you prefer to keep your head in the sand.
At least I can admit when I'm wrong. I'm not a cotton farmer. But as I said in my other post, which you'd have read if you weren't a stupid write-only commenter who can't admit his mistakes, there are plenty of crops still picked by hand, which is the larger issue when it comes to illegals, the poor, and welfare.
You ran away last time without checking my sources or replying to my argument. Islam is a religion and a political ideology, despite your repeated insistence otherwise in contradiction to the evidence.
Not religious? No problem. The evangelicals were behind him and he doesn't know anything about the Bible except for a couple lines from "Two Corinthians".
Probably because he promised to select Supreme Court judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's pretty weak, but its more than what they were getting from Hillary. I suspect he also might have cut a few checks to church leaders, but I don't have any evidence for it.
Don't respect women? It's all "boy talk", no big deal. Besides some are just too ugly & nasty anyway.
If Donald wasn't fit to be President for this, as Hillary claimed in the debates, he should have asked her if her husband Bill was fit to be President. Because they're both womanizers with a trail of women accusing them of impropriety.
Make creepy comments and be awkwardly handsy with own daughter? Just fatherly affection; I'm sure it'll be cool if Barack did the same with Malia.
On the other hand, there is video of Obama proudly sporting an erection in front of the press on a plane, and that was kept quiet. Joe Biden also got touchy feely with wives and daughters at public ceremonies, and it was just "Joe being Joe". Press was not offended, and people still wanted him to run.
Be the most ignorant candidate to get nominated, perhaps ever? No problem. Just put "Make America Great Again" on a cap and chant "USA, USA" a few times.
Being an extremely wealthy businessman helps with that perception. But you're missing out on how he was willing to cut through politically correct bullshit. You can be smart and say dumb things because they are politically correct.
Pledge to clean up Washington aka "drain the swamp"? With Mike Pence, Reince Preibus, Rudy Giuliani, perhaps Chris Christie?
Well yeah, anybody who thinks Trump is going to clean up a corrupt system is pretty dopey. But he was running against another corrupt candidate, so it was a wash.
Yes Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus.
I think it was more like a perfect storm. Personally, I think it sucks that Hillary and Trump were the two main choices, but I still preferred Trump in the end because of immigration, a willingness to be politically correct against shit like Black Lives Matter, and being wary of Hillary trying to turn Syria into another Libya, but this time going up against Russia.
Islam is not a race. It's a religion as well as a political ideology. And given the spate of terror attacks around the world, as well as authoritarian Islamic governments around the world, it's rational to stop importing it into your country.
I never noticed. It used to be "Barack Hussein Obama" back in the day. That at least had an emotional impact. "Thanks, Obama" was kinda funny. The lamest had to be "Obummer".
But Obama wasn't running, Crooked Hillary was. See, now that's an effective insult.
How exactly would we go about communicating with an alien race that appeared on Earth?
Aliens smart enough for interstellar space travel should be smart enough to figure out our communications and communicate quite easily. They shouldn't even need to stick probes up our butt.
What a load of horse shit. This is like when C/C++ programmers say avoiding memory corruption is right as long as you are competent and follow a few simple rules.
The issue is that code quickly becomes complex, humans are far from perfect, and it is *very* easy to make a mistake and break one of the "rules", and you end up with code that can run fine 99% of the time and then shit the bed and corrupt data in ways that are hard to reproduce or track down, often in a production environment.
Multi-threading isn't that hard if you have some experience and a good library.
When I see comments like that, I translate that to: Has bug-ridden threaded code that causes intermittent problems that get ignored because they are intermittent and hard to track down. Probably not even aware that they are caused by multithreading bugs.
Do you know why academics and members of the media tend liberal? They have had to practice skepticism and critical thinking.
You don't need skepticism and critical thinking in gender studies, African American studies, and communication degrees. Cultural marxists have taken over the university system.
The looney-toons policies of the religious fundamentalist core of Republican Party cannot survive rational evidence-based analysis. The Democrats don't get a free pass, but their BS to sanity ratio is much better than the Republicans, who actually courted the alt-right and Christian Coalition.
As opposed to the ctl-left, looney-toon social justice warriors? Remind me again which side now is rioting in the streets? Which side was shooting cops? Which side keeps pushing Oppression Olympics politics to the point of insanity?
It reportedly cost $100 million in 2011. According to Wikipedia, "Since inception through 2015, Donald Trump has contributed $5.5 million to the Trump Foundation while outside donors have contributed an additional $9.3 million."
And anybody giving to the Trump Foundation was probably doing it for business reasons and not actual charity. As in it's probably a tax dodge. The rich are quite fond of them.
Yeah, the guy's a corrupt businessman, a successful one. Just like the Clintons were corrupt politicians and also successful -- quite successful financially. Not many politicians can make tens of millions of dollars just by being politicians and not owning a business.
And just to refute your earlier point even further, Trump was already famous before his biggest business failures. He was always very good at marketing himself.
Because you have to be obscenely rich to be able to afford your own jet, so he's not the failure you make him out to be. It's annoying to have to explain the obvious to people.
no real plan or policies aside from building a wall
That was just for the rubes. Notice how he talked about rebuilding infrastructure and not a wall in his victory speech? Notice how he went from saying he was going to put Hillary in jail to thanking her for her service?
Do you really think he's going to build a wall and demand Mexico pay for it?
Now I hope he takes border control seriously, but expect a completely different President Trump from candidate Trump.
That's not what he said, and what he said is all we have to work off. You're ascribing intent to him that he has never expressed. The real answer is that we don't know.
Clinton was on public record for more military intervention in Syria, at the risk of direct confrontation with Russia, because I guess Libya worked out so well. Trump was on record for the opposite. Clinton wanted to treat cyber attacks "like any other attack", with the threat of military response, another poke at Russia because of the leaks. Who seems more dangerous here for starting a nuclear war?
Republican-leaning people, most likely, who can still do significant damage in many areas such as social policies, healthcare, environmental policies, etc. "Experience" can have many definitions and people will still have leanings even with experience.
Because things have worked out so well under Democrats? There are deep problems that neither party seems capable of solving.
Those "repressive anti-free-speech laws" aren't very popular and aren't all that different from what many conservatives want to implement in the US.
The useful idiots on the "progressive" left want to make it a crime to say anything politically incorrect that "harms" their "oppressed", protected classes, while spouting venom at straight, white males. They believe in compulsory speech, requiring you to use a bunch of made-up pronouns at the whim of a tiny fraction of the population with identity issues. They want "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings".
It's not the 90s anymore. The left has become the bigger threat to free speech.
Actually we didn't, Hillary looks set to win the popular vote which means that democracy lost.
The United States is a republic, not a straight-up democracy, and your side lost the election by the legal standard that's been in place for centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
But Bill wasn't running. You don't vote for the spouse. Bill went through his trial, and the backlash led to GWB's presidency.
There are several points here.
One, the whole movement to impeach Clinton in general was viewed unfavorably by the public. He was still a popular President. If anything, Gore hurt himself by trying to distance himself from Clinton.
Second, it was advertised that you were getting Bill as part of a package deal because he was experienced and liked, and he campaigned for her.
And third, Hillary stuck by and defended her husband through all of that (and by the accounts of accusers, she viciously defended him). The emotional impact of putting the question to her during the debate would have been devastating: Was her husband fit for the Presidency?
The bottom line is that Presidential womanizing is nothing new. After the shock value of the hot mic tape wore off, it didn't factor much in how people voted.
Actually, I dropped the argument because it was going nowhere.
That's what happens when you don't respond to the sources and arguments given. You'd rather bury your head in the sand and then repeat your ignorant arguments later on.
If Islamist ideology were inherent in Islam, we would see it in all devout Muslims, and we don't. Lots of them are reasonable, and only want to get along without imposing their views on others.
Non-starter argument. There are lots of things inhereint in many ideologies that are not followed by subsets of people that nominally belong to that ideology. As just one example, America stands for liberty, but you can find plenty of Americans who don't give two shits about it.
We would see it in all periods of history, and we don't.
Well if you checked the sources I gave last time, you'd find the vast majority of time Islam was militant, expansionist, and authoritarian. But you prefer to keep your head in the sand.
At least I can admit when I'm wrong. I'm not a cotton farmer. But as I said in my other post, which you'd have read if you weren't a stupid write-only commenter who can't admit his mistakes, there are plenty of crops still picked by hand, which is the larger issue when it comes to illegals, the poor, and welfare.
Don't blame me for your foolishness.
You ran away last time without checking my sources or replying to my argument. Islam is a religion and a political ideology, despite your repeated insistence otherwise in contradiction to the evidence.
Why don't you check other replies before making yourself redundant?
The letter is all over the map. It's basically an attempt at a mea culpa without having to acknowledge having done anything actually wrong.
Not religious? No problem. The evangelicals were behind him and he doesn't know anything about the Bible except for a couple lines from "Two Corinthians".
Probably because he promised to select Supreme Court judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's pretty weak, but its more than what they were getting from Hillary. I suspect he also might have cut a few checks to church leaders, but I don't have any evidence for it.
Don't respect women? It's all "boy talk", no big deal. Besides some are just too ugly & nasty anyway.
If Donald wasn't fit to be President for this, as Hillary claimed in the debates, he should have asked her if her husband Bill was fit to be President. Because they're both womanizers with a trail of women accusing them of impropriety.
Make creepy comments and be awkwardly handsy with own daughter? Just fatherly affection; I'm sure it'll be cool if Barack did the same with Malia.
On the other hand, there is video of Obama proudly sporting an erection in front of the press on a plane, and that was kept quiet. Joe Biden also got touchy feely with wives and daughters at public ceremonies, and it was just "Joe being Joe". Press was not offended, and people still wanted him to run.
Be the most ignorant candidate to get nominated, perhaps ever? No problem. Just put "Make America Great Again" on a cap and chant "USA, USA" a few times.
Being an extremely wealthy businessman helps with that perception. But you're missing out on how he was willing to cut through politically correct bullshit. You can be smart and say dumb things because they are politically correct.
Pledge to clean up Washington aka "drain the swamp"? With Mike Pence, Reince Preibus, Rudy Giuliani, perhaps Chris Christie?
Well yeah, anybody who thinks Trump is going to clean up a corrupt system is pretty dopey. But he was running against another corrupt candidate, so it was a wash.
Yes Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus.
I think it was more like a perfect storm. Personally, I think it sucks that Hillary and Trump were the two main choices, but I still preferred Trump in the end because of immigration, a willingness to be politically correct against shit like Black Lives Matter, and being wary of Hillary trying to turn Syria into another Libya, but this time going up against Russia.
Islam is not a race. It's a religion as well as a political ideology. And given the spate of terror attacks around the world, as well as authoritarian Islamic governments around the world, it's rational to stop importing it into your country.
I'm not a cotton farmer. Anyways, there are plenty of crops still picked by hand.
Who's going to pick it once Trump deports all the Mexicans?
If you got rid of welfare, it would be the poor.
And you don't find "H. Obama" amusing?
I never noticed. It used to be "Barack Hussein Obama" back in the day. That at least had an emotional impact. "Thanks, Obama" was kinda funny. The lamest had to be "Obummer".
But Obama wasn't running, Crooked Hillary was. See, now that's an effective insult.
"Drumpf" doesn't bother me. It's just amusing that's the best the left came up with and then they ran with it.
How exactly would we go about communicating with an alien race that appeared on Earth?
Aliens smart enough for interstellar space travel should be smart enough to figure out our communications and communicate quite easily. They shouldn't even need to stick probes up our butt.
Drumpf
It's lame insults like this that are part of the reason Clinton supporters lost. Thank you John Oliver.
Google has a fuckton of servers. If one of them misbehaves on a search, it doesn't matter. They have bugs just like everybody else.
What a load of horse shit. This is like when C/C++ programmers say avoiding memory corruption is right as long as you are competent and follow a few simple rules.
The issue is that code quickly becomes complex, humans are far from perfect, and it is *very* easy to make a mistake and break one of the "rules", and you end up with code that can run fine 99% of the time and then shit the bed and corrupt data in ways that are hard to reproduce or track down, often in a production environment.
Multi-threading isn't that hard if you have some experience and a good library.
When I see comments like that, I translate that to: Has bug-ridden threaded code that causes intermittent problems that get ignored because they are intermittent and hard to track down. Probably not even aware that they are caused by multithreading bugs.
Do you know why academics and members of the media tend liberal? They have had to practice skepticism and critical thinking.
You don't need skepticism and critical thinking in gender studies, African American studies, and communication degrees. Cultural marxists have taken over the university system.
The looney-toons policies of the religious fundamentalist core of Republican Party cannot survive rational evidence-based analysis. The Democrats don't get a free pass, but their BS to sanity ratio is much better than the Republicans, who actually courted the alt-right and Christian Coalition.
As opposed to the ctl-left, looney-toon social justice warriors? Remind me again which side now is rioting in the streets? Which side was shooting cops? Which side keeps pushing Oppression Olympics politics to the point of insanity?
All right, but apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?
It reportedly cost $100 million in 2011. According to Wikipedia, "Since inception through 2015, Donald Trump has contributed $5.5 million to the Trump Foundation while outside donors have contributed an additional $9.3 million."
And anybody giving to the Trump Foundation was probably doing it for business reasons and not actual charity. As in it's probably a tax dodge. The rich are quite fond of them.
Yeah, the guy's a corrupt businessman, a successful one. Just like the Clintons were corrupt politicians and also successful -- quite successful financially. Not many politicians can make tens of millions of dollars just by being politicians and not owning a business.
And just to refute your earlier point even further, Trump was already famous before his biggest business failures. He was always very good at marketing himself.
Because you have to be obscenely rich to be able to afford your own jet, so he's not the failure you make him out to be. It's annoying to have to explain the obvious to people.
only claim to fame is failing at business
I wish I failed at business so hard I could fly around in my own jet.
no real plan or policies aside from building a wall
That was just for the rubes. Notice how he talked about rebuilding infrastructure and not a wall in his victory speech? Notice how he went from saying he was going to put Hillary in jail to thanking her for her service?
Do you really think he's going to build a wall and demand Mexico pay for it?
Now I hope he takes border control seriously, but expect a completely different President Trump from candidate Trump.
That's not what he said, and what he said is all we have to work off. You're ascribing intent to him that he has never expressed. The real answer is that we don't know.
Clinton was on public record for more military intervention in Syria, at the risk of direct confrontation with Russia, because I guess Libya worked out so well. Trump was on record for the opposite. Clinton wanted to treat cyber attacks "like any other attack", with the threat of military response, another poke at Russia because of the leaks. Who seems more dangerous here for starting a nuclear war?
Republican-leaning people, most likely, who can still do significant damage in many areas such as social policies, healthcare, environmental policies, etc. "Experience" can have many definitions and people will still have leanings even with experience.
Because things have worked out so well under Democrats? There are deep problems that neither party seems capable of solving.
Those "repressive anti-free-speech laws" aren't very popular and aren't all that different from what many conservatives want to implement in the US.
The useful idiots on the "progressive" left want to make it a crime to say anything politically incorrect that "harms" their "oppressed", protected classes, while spouting venom at straight, white males. They believe in compulsory speech, requiring you to use a bunch of made-up pronouns at the whim of a tiny fraction of the population with identity issues. They want "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings".
It's not the 90s anymore. The left has become the bigger threat to free speech.
Actually we didn't, Hillary looks set to win the popular vote which means that democracy lost.
The United States is a republic, not a straight-up democracy, and your side lost the election by the legal standard that's been in place for centuries.
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Enjoy four years of Trump.