Pidesco

So after all these posts on people accusing others of badly supporting facts with narratives personal, and narratives linked to those advertising the facts - I make a bad joke, and link to the first newspaper on google for the uninformed that details those facts - and you stick the middle finger up at my joke to discredit it becasue of the politics of the daily mail. I'm pretty sure he didn't "stick the middle finger up at your joke to discredit it because of the politics of the Daily Mail", he pointed out that the Daily Mail in no way counts as a credible source. Yes, but - Huma Abedins husband has been found sending texts to a 15 year old girl: "Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former US congressman, has been exposed for exchanging sexting messages with a 15-year-old girl." My joke was about a sex pervert who relapsed from sex therapy treatment: "But sex therapy and addiction experts say the program he enrolled in shortly after his resignation wouldn’t have done much to address the root causes behind his behavior." It's not the narrative of the source - it's the facts they bring up. Unless you are denying that this person has not been exposed sexting to a 15 year old?...and then we're right back to "THE RUSSIANS (unproven) vs George Soros owning a significant number of voting machines (proven). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/disgraced-anthony-weiner-sorry-for-texts-to-15-year-old-girl/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/sex-therapy-experts-anthony-weiner-not-cured?utm_term=.ybqBmbnLd#.wuokyK2e8 I went and checked the Soros thing. http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

So is the claim here that Marina Abramovic is an insane alternative "artist" person or that the DNC are a bunch of satanists by association?

She didn't do any of that.

Except, of course, that he is not really in the running.

Johnson seems like an incompetent fool to me, but that's just me. He suffers from the same problem as Clinton, in a way: the only positive thing about him is that he isn't Trump or Clinton. A bit of hyperbole, but not that much.

I'm specifically asking what has she verifiably done that is worse than the Iran-Contra scandal, or the Iraq invasion, or the bombing of Yugoslavia. I'm quite sure that in each of these instances there was strong advice given to the president for yay or nay decisions, and then they made an informed decision. To disregard any advice on security, and help a nations enemies would not be advised by anyone, and this is before she has entered office and shouldered the additional responsibility of that post. These seem like red flags to me at least that Mrs Clinton is an unsuitable candidate along with many other flaws, and a lack of basic charisma of course. Arguing that she's just as corrupt/incompetent as everyone else isn't a defense, it's an excuse, the electorate deserve better and that's why I asked what their response is to this, and am wondering whether they are seeking a better way and candidates. I'm not saying she is like everyone else therefore she is okay. I'm saying she is like everyone else beforetherefore she is massively better than a screaming incoherent dumpster fire. My beef is specifically with Americans. More specifically with Americans that fall along party lines or Americans that say Trump and Clinton are the same. Americans that, in any other election drew massive distinctions between candidates that were functionally the same or really similar, from Reagan to Mondale to Clinton, to whoever. Now, for the first time in decades, you have a candidate that is demonstrably, verifiably worse than the other in a way that is unprecedented in the lifetimes of everyone voting, and everyone suddenly remembers their principles and say they are all the same, when they couldn't be more different. P.S.: This isn't any different anywhere else, I think. On the Portuguese Internet you have comment screaming matches between supporters of the two center parties (right and left), when the parties are peas of the same corrupt pod, and do more or less the same when they are in power.

Don't get me wrong, i think Clinton is horrible, just not any more horrible than, say, Reagan, who I've seen described in the same breath as Lincoln. I mean you have an entire country serially electing political ratbastards for office, at every level of government for literally decades, suddenly there comes one ratbastard that apparently is just too much, for no apparent reason. You don't get to be fine with one corrupt politician enriching himself through elected office, and doing generally morally reprehensible things, while being outraged by another showing the exact same characteristics. And note that Trump is despicable, corrupt and incompetent in ways Reagan, or Bush or Clinton were/are not.

If those behaviors are good enough for a President not to be impeached, what exactly do you think Clinton will do that's worse than that?

I'm specifically asking what has she verifiably done that is worse than the Iran-Contra scandal, or the Iraq invasion, or the bombing of Yugoslavia.

What exactly makes Clinton more unsuitable for the job than W, or her husband, or Obama, or Reagan?

The tendency there is today to discredit any media that doesn't agree with one's views is quite worrying. Basically, the standard position seems to be "why have facts when I have something in writing that agrees with me?". For instance, the need to do something about climate change is being sold down the river, in part due to this mentality. If no one is to be trusted or respected, facts become relative, and Breitbart holds the same level of truthiness as Snopes, regardless of citations or empirical data provided. An example in these very threads is the whole "Clinton has laughed at a rape victim" statement, which is easy to debunk, and has been debunked here, but that doesn't stop everyone and their mother of rolling out that utterly baseless statement again and again. It's all an extension the talking head syndrome of TV journalism, as well, that has been repeatedly used in "balanced" reporting. You have an issue like climate change or vaccines or whatever, and the TV networks will report on it by providing two talking heads with opposing viewpoints. It appears balanced, but in fact it's one guy defending normal scientific discourse against a nutter who believes time traveling lizard people are behind it all. And supposedly this is ok because Einstein was once believed to be wrong or something.

The collusion of lamestream media:

I´d say the genre is kind of dead right now of overexposure? World War Z and Walking Dead would be the pinnacle of said overexposure.

I got an e-mail from Amazon today telling me the game has been delayed to the 15th. I assume this is just for the retail version.

Probably not as the blights are just minor.

I feel the same way about ketchup.

Isn't Gromnir a lawyer?

Yeah, you might abolish slavery or get people on the Moon. God forbid, that! Both of which were done with President's of one party and at least one house of Congress controlled by a different party. The things that everyone agrees on still get done. But when there is no power behind the political opposition you get bad things like the Patriot Act and the ACA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress The graph here isn't the most parseable thing, but it sure seems to me that in both 1863 and 1961 only one party controlled both houses and the presidency.

Yeah, you might abolish slavery or get people on the Moon. God forbid, that!

Contact Ship Naked, here. They should get back to you in a couple of days.

What? He asked Johnson sensible questions, and Johnson didn't have answers. This is the sort of thing that should happen at the big debates and usually doesn't. Often the candidates aren't challenged when they respond with no substance to policy questions. Johnson was pressed and he couldn't handle it.

I'll see doctor strange in a couple of hours, but the villain is a strange choice, unless you are deliberately setting things up for the sequel. If it pays off, the villain in the sequel could be awesome.

As Zoraptor explained, if you have unlimited income the hospitals and doctors are great. You might notice that the vast majority of people don't have unlimited income.

The system is broke and healthcare providers are villains because private citizens pay more money out of pocket for healthcare than about any other western country, and in addition to that the government spends more per capita on healthcare than about any other country in the world with free healthcare. At the same time Americans also have the worst health outcomes of the western world by a significant margin.

Maybe that's because Britain has yet to leave anything whatsoever. Also, the predicted growth was 0.3 and the last quarter's growth was 0.7.