Bartimaeus

I'm reading all sorts of conflicting information - some say it's succeeded, some says it's failed. Guess we'll have to wait a few days to figure out who's lying. (e): Although given that we're hearing it from both sides, I guess it might be fair to say that both are lying, since clearly neither one of them has been able to shut up the other side.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/15/bernie-sanders-progressive-message/87073052/ Key takeaways (according to reddit): But Sanders said he'll remain a candidate until Clinton’s official nomination so his nearly 1,900 delegates can cast their ballots for him at the convention. "I want the country and the world and our people to appreciate the kind of success we’ve had,” he said. As part of his goal to transform the Democratic Party, Sanders said, he'll continue to push for electoral reforms when the party’s rules committee meets before the convention. "If we’re not successful there, we will take those issues to the floor,” he said. Sanders said he wants to make sure candidates receiving such help are, in fact, progressive. But they don’t have to be Democrats. “If you have some strong independents who would like to run, it would be my inclination to support them,” he said. He plans to maintain control of his email list, as opposed to giving it to Hillary/the DNC as is the usual for conceding candidates, I guess.

...

That's pretty rotten. Hoping for the best, Shady.

The email sent out to supporters: "Today, I endorsed Hillary Clinton to be our next president. I know that some of you will be disappointed with that decision. But I believe that, at this moment, our country, our values, and our common vision for a transformed America, are best served by the defeat of Donald Trump and the election of Hillary Clinton. You should know that in the weeks since the last primary, both campaigns have worked together in good faith to bridge some of the policy issues that divided us during the election. Did we come to agreement on everything? Of course not. But we made important steps forward. Hillary Clinton released a debt free college plan that we developed together which now includes free tuition at public colleges and universities for working families. This was a major part of our campaign’s agenda and a proposal that, if enacted into law, would revolutionize higher education in this country. Secretary Clinton has also publicly committed to massive investments in health care for communities across this country that will increase primary care, including mental health care, dental care, and low-cost prescription drug access for an additional 25 million people. Importantly, she has also endorsed the enactment of a so-called public option to allow everyone in this country to participate in a public insurance program. This idea was killed by the insurance industry during consideration of President Obama’s health care program. During the Democratic platform proceedings in St. Louis and Orlando, we were victorious in including amendments to make it a clear priority of the Democratic Party to fight for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, expand Social Security, abolish the death penalty, put a price on carbon, establish a path toward the legalization of marijuana, enact major criminal justice reforms, pass comprehensive immigration reform, end for-profit prisons and detention facilities, break up too-big-to-fail banks and create a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act, close loopholes that allow big companies to avoid taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens and use that revenue to rebuild America, approve the most expansive agenda ever for protecting Native American rights and so much more."

Over 100 pages of going around in circles, guys. What a journey it's been.

Hm, that's not exactly fantastic for a more expensive card. Actual game benchmarks will be more useful, plus maybe they still need to do a driver update for it - we'll know in the coming weeks.

I've always found it amusing that Poland, whose capital is Warsaw and whom the Warsaw Pact is named after, is now one of NATO's staunchest members.

"decent stuff" "tofu" pick one

For the record, and since it was mentioned here, the PCIE problem was partially fixed by a recent driver update. According to what I've read, it's still just a little out of specifications, but, as one person I read put it, "[...]probably out of the danger zone now."

Congress grilling Comey about Hillary giving out classified information, for anyone who wants to see.

So was Hitler...and so were Theodore Roosevelt, and George Washington, and James K. Polk, and Robert E. Lee, and... Convictions in of themselves don't make the (wo)man, I will agree...but at least you know where they're coming from.

Nice. ...Although, I've actually seen 980s for a little sub-300 recently...but still.

In my view, he didn't give up on trying to fix the inequality between whites and blacks (and other minority groups) - in whatever forms he believes inequality manifests itself as - even when blacks overwhelmingly voted against him. He didn't give up on seniors even when they overwhelmingly voted against him. He didn't give up on women's rights even when women didn't vote for him perhaps quite as well as he would've liked. The way I see it, by steadfastly refusing to give in and say, "Well, I guess Hillary's making all the decisions now! Make sure to vote for her!" as would be the norm in today's party politics, he is not giving up on the people who voted for him and his vision...and NOT Hillary and hers. He's fighting tooth and nail for those people...and the way I see it, this is how politics should be done - with a little conviction. He will still end up endorsing her after he's done everything he possibly could because convictions will require him to in the face of a lack of better options, and I can understand and respect that, even if I don't particularly like it. So yes, I think it's unfair to imply that he's still in it all for himself, when it seems pretty obvious that he's not.

And I was perfectly O.K. with that, but... This is what I took issue with, and nothing you've responded with since has been about that. Maybe I didn't make that totally clear when I originally responded, but I did mention his motives for not conceding multiple times.

Again, thanks, guys. This is the same sister whom I had mentioned in months past, where I had said bad things would happen if people didn't start changing their behavior. Well, they didn't, and, well, here we are. I probably don't say this very often, but I really wish I had been wrong. That's life, though.

Says the guy getting on Sanders' case for continuing to protest party politics.

You are literally assigning a motive to his actions that he has not expressed, when in fact, he has expressed other motives for doing what he has done. I am perfectly O.K. with the Democratic Party being unhappy with him for not following the status quo in accepting the winner's coronation and subsequently letting them walk all over him. In turn, I'm pretty unhappy with them for ignoring his platform and supporters as hard as they have done, and for ignoring the vast, vast majority of his nominations for party positions. They were ignoring him and whatever "leverage" - your words - he had to begin with, so I hardly care if that leverage disappears by him continuing his little protest of crappy party politics. Indeed, it just makes me like him better by refusing to tote the line until the very end and the party less for trying to coerce him into doing so, and that's probably much the same for other Sanders supporters. Yes, if it were my choice, he should not endorse Hillary at any point, or give a very weak one at best - something along the lines of, "...Well, she's not Trump. I leave the matter to the voters and their consciences." I think his convictions regarding how bad Trump is are a little stronger than mine, though, so it'll probably be a stronger endorsement than that.

You assigned a motive to his actions that I feel is pretty unfair towards him, which is what I asked about. I am pretty sure he doesn't give a crap about "party unity", and why should he? The nominee will be decided at the convention regardless.

Source of him saying something to that effect? From what he's said, he's pretty clearly just trying to represent his share of the vote (who he feels is not represented well by Clinton) all the way to the convention as best as he can.

Thanks, guys.

Speaking of health and hell, I attended my sister's funeral today.

The average life expectancy of a larger breed like a great dane vs a smaller one like a beagle is pretty different...in fact, according to wikipedia, it's up to double for the beagle. So do you just say, "Yeah, great danes have a life expectancy of like 50 years, while beagles are a little over 100"? Why even use such an arbitrary conversion rate when it doesn't even account for the wildly different breed-specific differences? ...And anyways, a year is supposed to be (approximately) one orbit of the planet around the sun, so in my books, dog years are exactly the same as people years unless said dog is living on Mars or something...

What Guard Dog means to say is, yes, yes they effectively are. To vote elsewise is really just to try to legitimize third party candidates a little more for future elections...it will (almost absolutely guaranteed) have no effect for this one.