Haha, yes. Boy, has that been a circus.
Haha, yes. Boy, has that been a circus.
But that's how it's =supposed= to work. As someone once pointed out, the Founders *designed* the system to promote legislative gridlock, under the theory that the less legislation gets passed, the less *stupid* legislation gets passed.
My feeling is that even if Trump sucks, it's better to have someone who will argue with Congress, rather than a rubberstamp for every lunacy that comes down the pike, as I expect would happen with Clinton in the office.
Exactly. And I don't see anyone trying to run off Milo, either... except the 'progressives' who try to prevent him from speaking at conservative events.
I think this is aimed more at people who have a fairly expensive phone and don't really need a fullblown PC, but still would like have better keyboard etc. for home use (not so much for dragging around). That, in my observation, is a LOT of people.
New life for outdated/discarded phones, too.
Wonder if it works with phones that are in provider limbo, but still work fine otherwise.
Given how you explain it -- if it could be assured that it's one person, one share, one vote -- it sounds like a reasonable idea.
As to sockpuppets, I'd be rather more leery of Soros than Koch. Soros has openly stated his objective is to disrupt and destroy western civilization (without which we would not be having this conversation). If you support Soros' objective, by all means support Tides.
Hell if I know what you watched; not everyone likes what Milo has to say, but I appreciate his advocacy for our Constitutional rights, in particular the rights of free speech and self-defense; admittedly I also enjoy his derision of special snowflakes. -- And since some disagree, we get people paid to disrupt his talks; frex, Trigglypuff.
Am I a bigot or a racist? Hmm. I'll have to think about that. Why can't I be both? -- I'm bigoted against stupid people, and I'm racist against anyone who comes to America and declines to become an American. (With no hyphen.)
I can't be arsed to particularly hate any of them, tho the term does make for a convenient shorthand, especially if the objective is to silence the opposition.
As to Islam, I direct your attention to this document:
Any faction which openly states its objective is to infiltrate my country is NOT my friend.
So long as anyone can shout "La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah" and become a Muslim, methinks the answer there is obvious.
I might have preferred Scott Walker or maybe Gary Johnson, but lacking those choices (voting for 3rd parties merely splits the vote and mathematically ensures that the candidate you like *least* wins), I became interested in Trump when I realised there was no filter between his mouth and his brain. I prefer my elected officials say what they think, however crazy that may sound, rather than tell carefully crafted lies.
But I agree with him about cutting back and becoming more selective about who we let immigrate, and about building the wall. First, the U.S. is the only country in the world that doesn't cherrypick; we let almost anyone immigrate, which is damn foolish. Let's just adopt Mexico's common-sense rules. Second, I grew up in Montana, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, I used to believe in a borderless world and free immigration and all that. Then I spent 28 years in southern California, and experienced firsthand what uncontrolled immigration is doing to our country. Now I'm all for gun turrets at the border.
I fail to see how "charity shares" wouldn't devolve into "funding channels for them with the most gold". For that matter, we already have that with outfits like the Tides Foundation.
I don't think she's being shafted; I think she's totally skating, and became convinced of that after reading even just a random dipping into the leaked emails. I didn't need and don't drink anyone else's koolaid.
As to my rationale about Trump, I'll let someone more articulate speak for me.
Well, I use here, Soylent, and Pipedot -- not concerned about their relative sizes. Each has its own "personality" so to speak, and I find all three useful.
Don't know; don't care that much -- more a curiosity of Hillary's history at this point. I'm rather more concerned about her current demonstrable
Yeah, there is some complaint from the older crowd about how they no longer look like work trucks and are styled to resemble 18-wheelers, but so long as they still do the job and last through the work... as a Ford bigot, I think they stopped looking like real work trucks after 1997, and when I got mine I specifically looked for '97 or older, both for various features and so it wouldn't make my eyes bleed. (My F350 is a 1991. Previous truck was a 1978.)
For trucks-as-status-symbols, tho, we can't hold a burnt match to the Japanese in the 1980s. Back then a friend made a good living scrounging up used pickups for export to Japan... but they had to be fullsized, king-cab, and dually, and preferably loaded with all the options. Had to be pretty, but didn't have to run well... because the buyers didn't (and couldn't) drive them anyway. Those trucks literally sat out front of the house as status symbols and nothing else.
So I kinda laughed when the best used truck I found was a king-cab dually. Wasn't quite what I was looking for, but damn, it's an *awesome* work truck.
Mainly agreed with the analysis of the lawyer mindset etc.
Whatever it was that I saw about Hillary's bar exam woes was fairly specific (named places and events), not a vague allegation, so most likely true; I just have no idea where I saw it (while skimming the morning news, most likely). But what wasn't stated was whether this is typical or unusual -- since in some professions it's not unusual to fail the licensing exam several times.
I don't particularly give a damn about that; I'm more interested in her current competence, which to my eye is gravely lacking.
Yep, given enough time in the limelight, everyone says dumb shit and can be cherrypicked.
No idea, but it was an occasional topic on SoylentNews in its early stages. There everyone has 5 points per day.
Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.