You seriously regard it as acceptable for someone who seeks public office to lie about an issue of public importance? And I'm the one that's detached from reality? I don't even know the relevance of your story about ambulance chasing. What I do know is that if Hillary was running against any sane candidate she'd be taking a serious hit for being caught in such obvious lies. As it stands, people are voting against Trump, not for Hillary, so she'll probably get away with it, but even still.....
I really don't know if you're an apologist for her or if you just are so afraid of Trump that you can't condone any criticism of Hillary. Trump scares the shit out of me too, but I'm still going to vomit in my mouth when I pull that lever for Hillary. Maybe we'll get lucky and a meteor will land on the debate hall, take them both out, and between the two parties SOMEONE sane and respectable will emerge.
That's a pretty good argument if you have never told a lie or made a misleading statement
You've now crossed into apologist territory. I tell you that I'm going to vote for her but you still can't let it go, you have to defend her at all costs.
Guess what? I'm not running for elected office!!!! She fucking lied, repeatedly, about an issue of public interest, while running for the highest office in the land. Why is it so hard for you to unequivocally condemn such behavior? We have the right to expect better from those that would lead us. The worst part is the lies weren't necessary. She could have simply said, "I make a mistake." and left it at that, but she has too much hubris to do that.
but I actually count her gender in her favor
Her gender is irrelevant. I don't like her because I don't trust her. Neither do 57% of our countryman. You can't attribute all of that to sexism, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," or whatever other excuse the Clintons may point to.
Watch that TDS clip. She lied. It's very obvious and straightforward. As I said many posts ago, hubris. Bill and Hillary have it to a degree that's shocking even by Washington standards.
Unfortunately, as you say, the alternative can't be contemplated. As it stands now I fear that he may well win; I would not have that fear if he was running against Sanders, Biden, or almost any other Democrat. I wish the Democrats had gone with almost anybody else. Or that the Republicans had nominated one of the sane candidates. Alas, that was not to be.
We quite literally get to pick between the douche and the turd. The frightening thing is that the world is a very dangerous place right now; never have our problems been so big while our leaders were so small. *sigh*
How do you suppose Ancient Rome would have responded to 9/11? They would have killed every enemy male of military age and sold the women and children into slavery. Be thankful we largely play by the rules of the civilized world, because we could end Islamic terrorism 30 minutes after POTUS picked up the phone if we were so inclined.
You're really going to play the sexist card against me just because I don't like Hillary? Give me a fucking break dude. She's going to get my vote -- the alternative is too scary to contemplate -- but I don't have to be fucking happy about it, and if you think all opposition to her is grounded in sexism you're delusional. Even The Daily Show dislikes her. When the Democrat earns the scorn of TDS there's obviously something wrong.
Or Trevor Noah is a sexist. Yeah, that's probably it. *sarcasm*
You don't count Russia as a peer country? They have the ability to completely destroy the United States 45 minutes after Putin makes a phone call. If nukes are too theoretical for you, consider this: They can occupy several NATO members, overnight, and present us with a fait accompli. Then we get to choose between a protracted war, with a nuclear armed state, or the abandonment of those allies and collapse of the post-1945 world order. NATO would probably win a protracted war with Russia -- assuming it didn't go nuclear, a very big assumption -- since economics, technology, and demographics are on our side, but it would be very costly in terms of blood and treasure.
China is definitely a near-peer country. They already have the ability -- without using nukes -- to make it extremely costly for us to honor our commitments to our Asian allies. They can rain conventional missiles down on American soil -- Guam and the NMI -- and if a conflict went nuclear they could exact a very heavy price from CONUS. The rest of the near-peers are all allies (Germany, UK, France, Japan, Israel) or at least friendly competitors (India), so we've got that going for us at least.
(Actually, I'm glad that we dominate -- I just think it's a bit overkill to do so by so wide a margin.)
Well, that's an interesting observation. You kind of surprised me with that one. Why is it "overkill?" You specifically cited the USN to prove your point but I think you're ignoring the reality that the USN has obligations in every ocean and sea on the blue marble. 10 supercarriers sounds like overkill, but in reality you can only deploy about 1/3 of them at any given time; the rest will be in the yard for maintenance and overhaul. Four of them are deployed right now, which may be four more than anyone else has, but it's still pretty thin coverage when you think about the demands placed on the USN.
Don't get me wrong, I do see a lot of waste with our defense spending. I'm not certain why we still maintain a force of ICBMs when SSBNs are infinitely more survivable. I don't understand why cheap and proven platforms like the A-10 fall out of favor. There's a lot of things I would do differently if I was SecDef. Alas, he hasn't asked me for my opinion.
If you don't want American bombs dropped on you there's a surefire way to avoid it: Don't kill American citizens or those of our allies.
I have little sympathy for the enemies of civilization. They deserve what they get. They're modern day barbarians and we owe them no quarter or consideration so long as they refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world.
We don't do it by ourselves. It happens in concert with our allies and occasionally even with competitors -- Russia and China contributed warships to the anti-piracy efforts off Somalia, for instance. As far as "dominating" the world in military operations, I truly have no idea what he's trying to say. The United States hasn't fought a peer or even near-peer country since 1945. Our current military operations are essentially police actions, against the enemies of civilization, the equivalent of Rome resisting the barbarians, not Rome taking on Carthage.
In any case, the true American power isn't hard military power, but rather it's soft economic and cultural power. There's a McDonalds in most every major city on Earth. People all around the world consume our entertainment, follow our fashion trends, utilize Facebook and Google, and covet the next iPhone. They would continue to do these things even if we decommissioned the 19 aircraft carriers that apparently bother you so much.
I don't know from where you hail sir, but what you see as domination I see as the United States engaging in bilateral relations. We have a web of security agreements and alliances, all of which help to enforce the post-WW2 global order. We helped to create that order, along with the United Nations, and despite the many failings of the status quo we haven't seen a major power conflict since WW2. The World is still a messy place but it hasn't engaged in total warfare with tens of millions of casualties.
If you dislike the status quo, well, there's currently a loudmouthed asshole running for POTUS that promises to upend it. He seeks to turn our country inward and withdraw from those agreements that you view as dominating. Should he win -- $deity help us all -- you may well get to see the outcome you desire, but I don't think you'll like it, in the long term.
I really can't understand what motivates people like you? Do you spend all your time carefully filtering just the lies you want to hear and see?
There is an entire world of reality out there. You should visit it once in a while.
It would probably help if you turn off your search customization. The google knows what you want now and is trying hard to show it to you.
Dude, I gave you a reply. I don't know what more you want. You're obviously a partisan that would be unwilling to accept any criticism of your party's candidate. That's your right but don't try and lump me in with the partisans from the other side just because you don't like what I have to say.
Not that it's any of your business, but I'm center-left and have supported many more Democrats at the ballot box than Republicans. I campaigned for BHO in 2008 -- took a full week off of work to do it too -- and while he's disappointed me in many areas I still don't regret my decision to work with his campaign. I even referenced him in the post that you're now shitting on, pointing out that nobody has tried to impeach him, despite the fact that he's dealing with a Congress at least as obstinate at as the Gingrich lead one.
I really wish the Democrats had come up with somebody better. They gave us the second least liked nominee in American history. She only misses out on the #1 spot because Trump arrived to steal her crown. What an accomplishment -- you're slightly less hated than the racist that encourages his supporters to beat up protesters. Hillary 2016!!!!!
My hope was for Biden to run. When he didn't I got behind Sanders -- cast my primary ballot for him in fact -- but now we're stuck with Clinton. The way that she muscled everyone else -- including a sitting Vice President!!! -- out of the way is telling. It was "her turn" and to hell with anyone else that might have wanted to throw their hat in. The Democrats are going to be worse off for this in the years to come. You called the GOP primary a clown car, which is an apt analogy, but that clown car introduced a bunch of young charismatic candidates to the national electorate. The GOP will have a deep bench in 2020 and 2024. Who will the Democrats have when Hillary is done? Sanders is older than she is. Warren is little known outside of the net-roots.
I'm not advocating anything-goes - I'm not sure what I'm advocating. But I know something is out of balance, here.
I can tell you what's out of balance because I've said it here before. Facebook, Twitter, and friends have become the new AOL. The younger generation has precious little concept of the "internet." For them, the "internet" is their news feed on Facebook. I know a bunch of people that don't even bother to use Google anymore even though Google is a household name. I hear uninformed people talk about the "dark web," and they aren't referring to tor sites, they're referring to anything outside of the smartphone apps that constitute their walled garden social media experience.
This is Slashdot, so the audience here is a little older and more technically minded than most. For me, my first exposure to the internet was Usenet, then IRC, both completely uncensored mediums with no corporate agenda. That's what we think of when we think of the internet but we're squarely in the minority. Hell, even sites like Slashdot have occasionally had to censor comments and that was before they had corporate overlords to answer to.
It's not that Facebook is inherently evil, it's just that it's a large for-profit corporation; they started by censoring what's politically popular to censor, hate speech, ISIS videos, and the like, because they don't want their name tarnished by the association. Then they expanded to censoring other things -- firearms are no longer allowed to be sold in their marketplaces -- that have limited mainstream appeal, because they concluded that the cost benefit wasn't there for them.
In theory, what they do with hate speech is no different than Applebee's declining to host the local KKK's meet and greet, but in practice they've become so large that they're essentially a gatekeeper to the online community, and as noted it's hardly limited to hate speech. Once you decide that you're going to censor your platform -- and the motivations are too strong to resist for a for-profit enterprise -- it's obvious that you're not going to be able to stop at "hate speech," however defined.
I don't know what the solution to this is but it does sadden me when I think of how we escaped AOL only to replace it with Facebook and Twitter.
Will the Russian equivalent of Snowden flee his country with files detailing the abuses this law allows, publish the information drawing the ire of the Russian government, and flee to the US for sanctuary? Also, would the US grant him asylum or use him in a trade for Snowden?
Putin takes a slightly different approach to dealing with people who flee his grasp than Barack Obama does.
It's interesting to read the comments here wherein people equate the actions of the United States to those of Russia; I highly doubt that Snowden is going to mysteriously ingest polonium-210. Hell, if we really wanted him that badly all that was required was some realpolitik: "President Putin, we'll quietly acquiesce to your fait accompli in Crimea, all you have to do is put Mr. Snowden on the next flight to JFK......"
"One day I woke up and discovered that I was in love with tripe." -- Tom Anderson