Well, for one thing, I can still openly say precisely what I think of our leaders in Washington without fear that I might face retribution.
Like Catherine Englebrecht thought she could?
I can predict he'll start isolationist trade policies
Which is just a lot of talk and not much else. A president isn't a king. He has to follow the law. Especially Trump, because he won't have allies in the press actively hiding information that might be bad for his administration.
that he'll prefer Putin to our historic allies
Like the current President prefers Iran over Israel and Cuba over the UK. But, again, mostly talk.
that he'll poison our relationship with Mexico
Our relationship with Mexico is valuable to Mexico. How valuable is it to us? Since Mexico has less to offer than the benefit they receive from our "relationship", they're hardly in a position to hold a grudge over some meaningless talk and the US deciding to secure the border.
that he'll cause a crazy debt default incident
Good. The last one of those helped slow down runaway spending. It was the end of the world for about a week though. I'm sure there will be a lot of pearl-clutching and dramatic gasping and head-shaking by people who think it makes them superior to the rest of us.
Is that sufficent?
I'm not panicked yet. Keep telling your stories though. It's fun to tell stories.
Even if the Russians were to sweep all the way to the French Atlantic coast.....the domestic citizens of the US would not be at risk.
[Noted without comment...]
I'd say that "good programmers" can and do learn a variety of languages, and will use the most appropriate one for the task at hand. There's nothing wrong with getting down to the metal when requirements call for it, but doing so is foolish for many types of projects where top performance isn't a requirement. I'm a game developer, so I live and breathe C++ of course. But I write my tools in C#, and our game's scripting language is in Lua.
Why C# for tools? Because it has reflection, and a fantastic library for all sorts of serialization, networking, and UI support.
Why Lua for game scripts? Because then we can recompile and reload our game scripts on the fly, without even stopping the game.
Which programming language is "best"? It's a stupid question to start with, because the only reasonable answer is "it depends on what you're looking for in a language".
She's gleefully in favor of infringing on constitutionally protected rights,
Taking your guns away once again, I assume?
supports nationally self-destructive immigration policies,
Are you referring to the couple thousand Syrian women and children fleeing the aftermath of your stupid war? Or the 12 million Mexicans he wants to load onto rail cars and dump into the desert, south of the 2000 mile wall you think he's actually going to build?
and wants to see the government involved in wildly more private sector activities, at both the business and personal level.
WE HAVE MORE THAN TWO POLITICAL PARTIES IN THIS COUNTRY.
That's only technically true. The U.S. Constitution doesn't actually specify that there can only be two parties, but it arranges a winner-take-all system that organically results in the emergence of a two-party system. For a third party to gain a foothold, one of the two major parties has to fission roughly in half. (The last time this happened was before the Civil War, when the Whigs split up.) The U.S. has always had third parties, but each one is a satellite of one of the two major parties. (The Libertarian Party is a splinter off the Republican Party, and the Green Party is a splinter off the Democratic Party.) The reason that these parties stay small is obvious- if a Democrat votes Green, he knows it will help the Republicans, and if a Republican votes Libertarian, he knows it will help the Democrats. So the third parties only get a small number of protest votes (and only if these people don't stay home and watch Netflix).
This clearly has an effect on Senate elections. Also on the Electoral College during presidential elections, but states are reluctant to apportion electoral votes by the proportion of voters- since it means voters in that state exert less of an effect on the outcome of a presidential election than voters in winner-take-all states nearby.
Meanwhile the House of Representatives is controlled not by a majority of voters, not even by a majority of seats, but by a majority of a majority of seats. And that majority-of-a-majority isn't even answerable to the majority of voters in their districts, but to the (generally nutcase) minority that votes in primaries. Even if you disregard the ridiculous gerrymandering of districts, this isn't government by the people; it's government by a minority of a majority of a minority of the people. It's an absurd perversion of democracy and one of the biggest bugs in the Constitution.
The vast majority of which owe their national security to the US. Security which we are not properly compensated for. Trump will force our lazier "allies" to get their houses in order and shoulder more of the burden for protecting themselves.
The United States pays only 22.1% of the direct costs of NATO- about $500 million annually. (Germany pays 14.6%, France pays 10.6%, the UK pays 9.8%, Italy pays 8.4%, Canada pays 6.6%, Spain pays 5.8%, Turkey pays 4.3%, and the remaining 20 NATO allies- the Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc.- pay about 1% each on average.) On a per capita basis, the U.S. spends considerably less on NATO than either Germany or France.
The indirect costs of NATO, of course, are somewhat higher, as you'd naturally expect when a country voluntarily spends 54% of its discretionary budget on defense. That's totally nuts, and the way to address it would be to simply reduce military spending. But that's obviously not what he's proposing, since he knows it would get him booed off the stage. He's talking about keeping the military budget at present levels, and instituting a shakedown of NATO allies with an explicit threat to disregard our treaty obligations if countries don't pay up and are subsequently attacked. (The NATO treaty has been ratified by a Congressional supermajority, so this would be unconstitutional, but Trump insists that he can "negotiate" his way out of it and get a "better deal"- albeit one that could not possibly net us any more than $1 billion.)
Regardless of whether he intends to follow through on these statements or not, the mere fact that he's describing NATO in public as a protection racket instead of a treaty has already undermined national security. It's not as if both our NATO allies and Putin can't hear these rants (via "our Internet"), and the leaders of several of these countries have already expressed their suspicions that the United States might be willing to abrogate its treaty obligations if this fool gets elected. In fact Trump is making it clear that there could be no point in signing a treaty with the United States at all. It's now obvious to the rest of the world that the American political system has reached an ominous level of instability which is possibly sufficient to elevate a cretin like this to the presidency.
I don't recall any of those attacks being blamed on a youtube video by a Secretary of State and a President, let alone going after and investigating someone who made said video and using them as a scapegoat. Nor do I recall a Secretary of State lying to the families of those victims while telling people in private emails that it had nothing to do with a video.
Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Perhaps bold text can penetrate your thick skull. Once again, from the same 2014 article:
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world. As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
Vote for being told what's going on rather than having it hidden. What "stuff" are you predicting? It's safe to predict Clinton scandals based on history. And you can predict Trump will say stuff people will complain about. What else?
Yes, the 87 does include some attackers (duh), but if you actually read what I wrote, you would "fucking realize" that many more Americans died during those attacks than in Benghazi.
Were there nine investigations into them? No, zero. How many front page stories even mentioned them? Zero. Generally Americans don't give a shit about human life unless the victims are American citizens, so there's no point even mentioning total casualties. But aside from 9/11 (a day when GWB was "keeping us safe") it seems that even American lives are only valued when the GOP is not in power.
I'm tempted to grant you your wish to live under a Trump Presidency, where anyone who dares ask questions is told to shut up...or else! The only thing that is pulling me back from granting your your wish for this hell on earth is that all the rest of us would have to suffer right along with you
Why would it matter? The government seems to do almost the same thing regardless of who gets elected. Not much really changes. The other side always goes nuts and says the world's going to end if the latest Hitler (all Republicans) or Stalin (all Democrats) gets elected. The world never ends though.
It is just smart enough to not need the driver 100% of the time.
What would you say is the percentage of time it doesn't need the driver?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke