- 29,586
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I don't recall them exchanging long protein strands. Perhaps they've finally found a better way to do it.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
I don't recall them exchanging long protein strands. Perhaps they've finally found a better way to do it.
As the winner of many kart races and fencing bouts, I enjoy sporting with people who are under pressure. Something like a cat toying with a mouse, with a certain quality of schadenfreude.
I'm sitting on over a million dollars of property in and around Seattle, but alas no bunker. I do have a saltwater beach cabin, boathouse and bulkhead, and could live off the beach if need be. But frankly, I enjoy living in one of the most liberal cities on Earth. I enjoy wine, but lack an extensive wine cellar. I expect no immediate apocalypses, if you go by my lack of preparations.
I'm ready. I've lived a good life. But I may not be quite the first to go. I have access to Cousin Karl's bunker and arsenal.When the revolution comes (the one you've been confidently predicting), you'll be the first to go.
To throw unfair discredit is not what the "educated" do, it is just what YOU just did. By summarizing the source of disagreements to a moral stance, you conveniently but falsely leveling the arguments, to a point where the arguments weight nothing and are not even listened anymore. This rampant rhetoric is sadly one of the fondation of populism.This whole 'we're educated so we know better and if you vote right wing you're basically an uneducated xenophobe idiot', is a presumption i see a lot with liberals in Europe too. Illusions of owning the moral high ground is what it is. Like the left wing won't have the exact same amount of idiots supporting their cause.
It reeks of them secretly wishing they could alter democracy, so the plebs could be prevented from having influence on the decision making process. Democracy is fine as long as you don't vote for the wrong party, "because then we need to get violent and hateful against these hate mongers!"
Not a member, but historically speaking, one leads to the other. Just take a look at all of the massacres that took place in the 20th century and you will find gun control a common thread.Except to the NRA.
I can't speak for Mr. Dog, but I believe you missed the point. That's his interpretation of the chart posted by R1600. The inference is pretty clear and and it's been a common theme throughout this election. The dummies are voting for Trump and all the really smart people who know what they are doing are voting for Hillary. CNN, MSNBC, Huffington and all the left wing media have run numerous headlines touting the "education divide" or the plight of the "white working class voter". Of course they don't come out and say it blatantly, they leave that to the more fringe elements of the media, but they are always there to remind you just who is voting for whom and whom one might be lumped in with depending on how you cast your vote.To throw unfair discredit is not what the "educated" do, it is just what YOU just did. By summarizing the source of disagreements to a moral stance, you conveniently but falsely leveling the arguments, to a point where the arguments weight nothing and are not even listened anymore. This rampant rhetoric is sadly one of the fondation of populism.
A dead man want to talk to you:
Jeez, that guy talks fast
What are the chances of either candidate facing impeachment if and when they become President?
The point that @mister dog is making is that it is indeed intellectual dishonesty if it is ever implied that the highly educated are voting one way and everyone else is voting the other. Polls may be reflective on a trend, but the fact is that polls are not reflective on a final result of an election. Take the 1980 election for example.@Johnnypenso , your answer is clear and complete, so thank you. But my post was focused on this part of Mr Dog post "Illusions of owning the moral high ground", which is a way to not address and answer the legitimate questions raised about populists and their distance with facts, not only morality.
Actually you did speak for me there And like I said this same rhetoric is used in Europe all too often. Suggestively by liberal politicians and literally by left wingers in any old comment section on the interwebz (where people tend to show their true nature).I can't speak for Mr. Dog, but I believe you missed the point. That's his interpretation of the chart posted by R1600. The inference is pretty clear and and it's been a common theme throughout this election. The dummies are voting for Trump and all the really smart people who know what they are doing are voting for Hillary. CNN, MSNBC, Huffington and all the left wing media have run numerous headlines touting the "education divide" or the plight of the "white working class voter". Of course they don't come out and say it blatantly, they leave that to the more fringe elements of the media, but they are always there to remind you just who is voting for whom and whom one might be lumped in with depending on how you cast your vote.
Apprently going by Emails uncovered by Wikileaks, Chelsea Clinton was unaware of the shady tactics of her parents and was trying to dig into why all these consultants where in the Foundation payroll, these same consultants are emailing the Clintons to get Chelsea off their back and remind them how much ''For profit'' business they are bringing in for them.
To be balanced, they are not exactly backwards in calling out both candidates.That's a smoking gun if I ever saw one. Wow.
To be balanced, they are not exactly backwards in calling out both candidates.
And each side will use what it thinks is a reasonable reason to justify the actions of its 'pick'.To be honest, that was simply the campaign paying back Trump the loan that he gave his own campaign. Still shady, but that is what it is.
Apprently going by Emails uncovered by Wikileaks, Chelsea Clinton was unaware of the shady tactics of her parents and was trying to dig into why all these consultants where in the Foundation payroll, these same consultants are emailing the Clintons to get Chelsea off their back and remind them how much ''For profit'' business they are bringing in for them.
That's a smoking gun if I ever saw one. Wow.
Hillary bold face lying about being in NY on 9/11/01:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...n-nyc-on-911/article/2606229?custom_click=rss
"I was in New York City on 9/11 as one of the two Senators"Do you take that to mean that she was literally in New York on the day? I didn't... and she often references being in DC on the day and travelling to NY the following morning.
A Clintonesque response would be "depends on what the meaning of 'in' is"."I was in New York City on 9/11 as one of the two Senators"
Feel free to interpret that any way you like. Perhaps she meant to say "not" and just forgot.
A Clintonesque response would be "depends on what the meaning of 'in' is".
Miriam Websterin the position of participant, insider, or officeholder
Where do you think they are getting their most probative and devastating evidence? How about Wikileaks?
And how do you think Assange and Wikileaks is getting all those vast tranches of emails?
Has anyone noticed that Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch do not seem to be coming to the aid and defense of the embattled Hillary Clinton? It seems the Obamas are not showing up at her rallies, and Lynch has melted into the bushes. Obama's press secretary has come out and praised the integrity of FBI Director Comey.
Remember a few posts above where the WSJ published a vast article detailing the conflicts going on within and between government agencies?
Perhaps the time has come to weave all these threads together into a pattern that reveals the shocking place we have come to? Are you ready?
New York City doesn't have any senators. New York State has two, however, and she was indeed a state senator. Using "in" to mean "a citizen of" or "a representative of" is usage that I for one have never come across before. "In" a club, sure. "In a city" to mean a representative of the state the city is in, no.Or just an English speaker;
It's like being "in" a club, you don't have to be there.
More details emerge on how Trump could have dodged taxes - TL;DR, he used a loophole to avoid declaring cancelled debts, which would have been counted as taxable income.
Let's get one thing clear, Tax Avoidance is not a crime in the US. If it was, then Gawker Media would have faced IRS trouble a long time ago.More details emerge on how Trump could have dodged taxes - TL;DR, he used a loophole to avoid declaring cancelled debts, which would have been counted as taxable income.
Your preparations may be wasted. Literally hundreds of lawyers are already working for both sides preparing the appeals, protests, objections, lawsuits and everything else to cloud the legitimacy of the election whoever wins. This battle will go on and on.I'm seriously considering booking the morning off next Wednesday and working later so I can stay up and watch the US election coverage - that said, the results will only be known about morning/lunch time in the UK anyway, so it should be possible to watch it online at work to an extent.
It's almost as bad as the battle for 3rd place at the Mexican GP...Your preparations may be wasted. Literally hundreds of lawyers are already working for both sides preparing the appeals, protests, objections, lawsuits and everything else to cloud the legitimacy of the election whoever wins. This battle will go on and on.