Longknife

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqmlffA9U9s

Doomed to live in a country where high heel races are a thing? Damn, Snowden's surely regretting everything he ever did.

Please explain how her words apply to Snowden but not to herself. Did she break the law? Yes. She blatantly mishandled classified documents in a manner that should've been painfully obvious to her, and she did so with what appears to be the direct intent of circumventing laws regarding documentation and processing of such documents. Has information fallen into the wrong hands? Russia sure insists it did. But this hypocrite is apparently a super qualified person to lead this country because hot damn she has a vagina. Yeah ok. Snowden is a traitor and deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail but he can live out the rest of his days is his " Russian heaven" ..by now he would have realized the false image Putin has been projecting is nothing compared to the reality of actually living in Russia compared to the USA. So I say never let him be able to return home...having to live in countries like Russia is fitting punishment And the two examples are NOTHING alike, I am genuinely surprised you can find commonality between them, this just demonstrates your bias towards Hilary as you are using such a low bar Hilary had her own email domain for convenience reasons around using things like certain devices. It should have been addressed by White House security but it was allowed to continue She didnt do it to attack or undermine the entire USA Snowden worked at the NSA and deliberately stole confidential information and then shared it with foreign countries who have numerous reasons to undermine the USA . He knowingly did this and knew this had serious consequences in an attempt to undermine the entire security system of the USA. He is a traitor, this should be unequivocal. Hilary Clinton is nothing like Snowden, she is no traitor and is a patriot and cares for the well being of the USA Ok Bruce I know this is really hard since you're distracted by Hillary's magical shiny vagina and all, but I'm gonna try and spell it out for you. Snowden leaked info to US citizens because he showed genuine concern for the well-being and personal liberties of the people. It was information the American people had zero access to that they may have cared to know about. He didn't do it to attack the USA, he didn't do it to undermine it. He did it because he felt the US citizens had a right to know what was going on with their government and the ways they may encroach on individual privacy. He did his act out of concern, a concern that thousands of people around the globe appreciate. It's interesting to note that while Snowden enjoys a mix and positive and negative reception in the USA (older generations dislike him, younger generations like him), USA's allies are almost universally fond of the guy. Hillary? Convenience is the most weaksauce ****ing excuse one could possibly have when we're talking about top secret classified information. If I were Secretary of State and it's more convenient for me to have the nuclear missle launch codes on my bathroom wall at home, that doesn't make it smart or safe. You're basically suggesting to me that if it's convenient or easier for Hillary to do it her way, then **** the laws, right? Who needs those anyways? The thing is Clinton isn't stupid and would've had every opportunity to realize how illegal that is and how it undermines the very laws put in place regarding her work, and yet she did it. The question is why would she do this if she knows full well it's illegal and why does she continue to act non-compliant in regards to the investigation moving forward? IT'S AS IF SHE'S BEEN DOING SOMETHING BAD OR SOMETHIN'!! Look at this, that's in the news today. Do you not see how that kind of information, when in the wrong hands, jeoprodizes the lives of US military and agents? Yet she knowingly housed such info on her private server, despite how relentlessly NSA servers are subjected to hack attempts, and wouldn't you know it even random yahoo hackers in Romania were able to break into her server and access that information. This is a woman that is running for President of the United States. She is about to see classified documents and information daily, moreso than she did when she was Secretary of State, and you don't see how she's proven herself unqualified to handle such information? Even if you have absolute trust with Hillary and would entrust your life in her hands - aka even if you're a god damned idiot - she has proven herself incapable of handling sensitive information appropriately...and you wanna elect her president of the United States. Yeah man seems legit.

I like how we're just writing off her email scandal like it's no biggie. I've said before that indictment or no, this is ABSOLUTELY going to bite her in the ass. You do not move forward without problem if half your own staff and colleagues condemn what you've done. Plus wtf is this: Edward Snowden happens across some classified info he thinks the people have a right to know, releases it, and gets called terms as dramatic as "terrorist." He cannot return to the USA without facing serious charges that'd see him behind bars for life. Hillary Clinton sets up a private server with the direct intent of circumventing the law while also negligently doing so knowing the National Security servers are subjected to dozens of break-in attempts per day and in doing so jeoprodizes - amongst other things - the names and identities of FBI and CIA agents, and she's running for president. To double down, Hillary Clinton condemns Edward Snowden. In her own words: Please explain how her words apply to Snowden but not to herself. Did she break the law? Yes. She blatantly mishandled classified documents in a manner that should've been painfully obvious to her, and she did so with what appears to be the direct intent of circumventing laws regarding documentation and processing of such documents. Has information fallen into the wrong hands? Russia sure insists it did. But this hypocrite is apparently a super qualified person to lead this country because hot damn she has a vagina. Yeah ok.

What do you mean? How? He rarely comments on policies, and even when he does, he's typically extremely vague in a manner that suggests he knows next to nothing about finer details of the subject matter at hand. Hell, even ideas as well known as "making Mexico pay for it" are absolutely absurd and showcase his ignorance of what he can and cannot do. In general though, the issue is that he makes rather bold, empty statements with no methodology explained ("“I will...quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us" or “I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people,”) and despite a number of Trump supporters telling me "his policies are spelled out in great detail on his website/if you look," apparently I'm blind because I've failed to locate this great detail. He's also blissfully ignorant (or apathetic) to the effect his manner of speech has on crowds of people. The guy is a walking race riot waiting to happen, whether he intends that to be the case or not. I don't wish to argue if you can hold him personally responsible or not, because frankly I don't care. I don't want an authority figure that seems blissfully unaware to just how many idiots will start beating the **** out of each other if you handle your speeches in a certain style, because regardless of who is at fault or who is to blame, that's a serious problem. I have a swearing habit, and if I were to give a speech to the UN about global climate change, you better believe I have enough common sense to put a cap on it and make my case rather than to swear like a sailor while making sound arguments and then state "you can't blame me for the UN being too shortsighted to look past my constant swearing." No, you're supposed to be a leader; be concious of your speech habits and general tone and the effect it can have on people. Overall most of his campaign has been spent pointed at other people telling them how much they suck, but where he fails is that his attacks don't sound akin to "Hillary wants to do A,B and C and that's stupid. If I were president we'd do X, Y, and Z instead because Reasons 1, 2 and 3," but rather it's "Hillary is a pinhead." He's done little to make a case for his own campaign and has spent the bulk of his time on TV just ranting about why other people's campaigns are flawed. That may be so, but at some point you have to state why yours is better.

No, but it's rather mind-boggling to watch this all unfold. Trump could not make it any more obvious he's completely in over his head and by no means qualified to be president, whereas Hillary may as well be openly taunting anyone that opposes her while wearing god damned corporate logos instead of American flags.

The Signal and the Noise... Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year... Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data. Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400. Clinton won 33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory. Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes. Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%. Barti more or less highlighted what I was trying to say: I'm not denying Hillary has more delegates or more votes, merely highlighted that to show that Bernie can indeed make a case for being more electable vs. Trump. In your 33 contests Hillary won, about 5 of those have zero bearing on the general election (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc), 8 were virtual ties that were called in her name but effectively could and would support both candidates equally (that being what I meant by "Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's to Bernie, aka Bernie won by a mile in states like Hawaii but lost by a tiny margin in states like New Mexico, which occurs more frequently than states like NJ where Hillary was the clear winner), and Hillary has far more backing from the South than Bernie does. Sprinkle on top some of the more ridiculous contests such as Nevada and that yes there are absolutely cases of election fraud....? To claim Hillary didn't get more votes would be a bold and brash statement that no one in their right mind should be making, but am I stating that the numbers paint a far more clear-cut victory for Hillary when in reality, a good portion of her victory has rested upon Republican states neither she nor Bernie can hope to win, provinces with no political power in the general election and even historically ugly levels of corrupted voting? Yes, yes I am. My point wasn't to state Bernie is the "true winner" or some fanatical BS like that, but rather that I see definite cause for concern vs. Trump. As I said in my last post, the concerns raised by the Bernie campaign are more than just arguments for why he's more electable; they're things that the Hillary camp absolutely needs to be concious of going into the general election. They're realities. Thusfar, the impression I've gotten is that these concerns are not being taken seriously, and unless they plan on stealing the election or something, yes, they should absolutely be aware of those concerns and not treat them as little more than arguments for Bernie.

It was pointed out that even in the Democratic primary, Bernie won more states: 22 to Hillary's 20, alongside 8 that were close enough to count as ties. It's also worth noting that Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's losses to Bernie.

I googled Plank from Ed Edd n Eddy to see if there truly is porn of everything. Not only did I find him, but apparently you can "gender bender" a plank of wood.

This is the thing: the Clinton campaigned has failed to acknowledge multiple issues along the campaign trail. 1) Clinton has her lead largely (partially? To a decent degree, is my point) thanks to Southern states that the democrats can never hope to win anyways. Not that much of a biggie, but something to consider. I feel like a lot of the polls gloss over that Clinton is fully capable of winning the popular vote but will still absolutely lose if for example she wins 100% of the vote in New York and Cali, but fails to win ANY swing state. 2) Clinton has failed to tackle ANY of the issues regarding her paid speeches or pending indictment charges. Ignoring those issues does not make them go away. At the very least, she NEEDS to be capable of discussing these, because if she can't, Trump has a hidden talent for dominating the flow of a conversation and will not allow the topic to stray from these two points. 3) The Bernie supporters and independent voters have no obligation to vote for Hillary "for the good of the democratic party." That is not how this system works, it is delusional to think so. The easiest act come election day is to sit on your ass and do nothing and don't bother voting. It is the responsibility of all candidates involved to convince the people to cast their vote in their favor; the people do NOT have a duty to vote for a candidate in an election where they dislike all of them. To claim this is how the world works is in blatant denial of reality and can absolutely bite her campaign in the ass. 4) Related to 3, Clinton has done next to NOTHING to make compromises with the Sanders camp. With yesterday's results, under normal circumstances this would be a time when candidates make little compromises with each other or begin to bargain. Here this isn't happening since for Bernie, an indictment is still plausible and I think he's the type to remain in the race out of principle, but for Hillary...? No idea why she isn't attempting to reach out and speak to Sanders at the bargaining table. Her attitude is more akin to "shutup and get in line" rather than "what can we do to reach a compromise where all democrats are happy?" Hell, Trump has reached out to the Sanders camp more than Hillary has, and that's saying something given that Trump has a rather small campaign staff and isn't all that politically concious. If anything, Clinton has burned bridges with other democratic party members, which is rather problematic for her because she is basically dissuading half her "supporters" (aka democratic voters) from bothering to vote. I know some Sanders supporters that are so disgusted by her that Trump is their Plan B. In short, it feels like the Clinton campaign has been so sure of itself that it'll win vs. Sanders, but it's failed to realize that winning vs Sanders does not negate ANY of the critiques raised by her opponents. That Sanders has chosen to keep quiet about her indictment has been a boon for her campaign; Trump won't do the same. That Sanders supporters raise concerns about her electability vs. Donald Trump is not just an argument for supporting him instead; there's 100% truth to it and she SHOULD be taking measures towards trying to turn that around, which is best done by acknowledging and addressing the biggest critiques of her campaign while reaching compromises with Sanders supporters. But she's failing to do any of that, and honestly it's no wonder that the President of the Worst God Damned Haircut Club may become President of the United States.

The history books are gonna look so great when the first woman to make it this far gets indicted.

Best possible answer he could've given.

I think, as long as it's confined to it's own corner of the internet, they (and others) ignore it. If it gets to rampant they come down on it. I mean, Esurance had to change their mascot because there was just so many metric tons of porn created from Erin Esurance (with really really really bad puns) Which btw, I'd love to know who these people are that watched Esurance commercials and were like "yknow what? I really wanna jack off to this."

lolwhy though? It seems like free publicity. Granted it's free publicity in a strange manner, but it's still publicity. The only explanation I can think of is that their target demographic does involve people under 13 to some degree, so they don't want parents coming across OW porn and thinking "yeah can't have my kid playing that."

I always though the "millenials have it harder" thing was referring to the fact that more and more is being demanded of people as time goes on. AKA 100 years ago just finishing high school was great, 50 years ago college education was a nice boost, 20 years ago it was highly recommended for a better job, and today there's more positions that'll downright scoff at a Bachelor's for not being a full Master's degree. Humanity is moving forward and improving, but unfortunately that demands more and more from workers since competition is high, and the fact that globalization is occuring and it's no longer as difficult for Mr. 5-star perfect scores Valedictorian from Japan to fly all the way over to Madrid and compete with the star student there, yeah, there's some degree of more being expected. I don't think it's that unemployment itself got more problematic, but rather that competition is so strong these days that you see more and more people with degrees working jobs they're absolutely overqualified for simply because enough competition knocked them out of a proper position, and hell yeah it's frustrating to study a topic for years and then wind up managing a McDonald's or something.

Bikini Faso, obviously.

Even /r/indianpeoplefacebook is paying their respects.

You take that back, sir!

Guys I dont think you trying to understand my point, please try to not look at this from your own view which is biased Yeah cmon guys, stop being biased. You need to learn to be completely unbiased like our hero Bruce.

I got banned from the GoT subreddit for explaining to someone that Tommen will die due to a prophecy involving some old frog, a princess and "magic or prophecy or some BS like that" before linking him this picture as my source of information. It's a good thing forums have moderators to keep innocent people away from monsters like me.

Guys remember that time Bruce had a good opinion Me neither

There's a theory going around that Jaqen is actually testing Arya and the Waif. The theory is that by sparing Lady Crane, Arya has somehow shown the right level-headed mentality expected of a Faceless Man, showing that while she was ruthless with Meryn Trant, she's also capable of calming her wrath and showing mercy, aka it's an improvement from her last mission, but what remains to be tested is her actual proficiency as an assassin and he skills at killing. Meanwhile, the Waif has proven capable in combat, but has failed to show the correct mentality in that for example, she desires to see Arya die, and attempts to let that personal desire cross into her work. The two are being pit against each other. If Arya kills the Waif and lives, she's proven her combat proficiency and therefore passes. If the Waif were to honor Jaqen's wish and show Arya some degree of mercy, she's passing her test by proving she can uphold the ideals of the Faceless Men aswell. If this theory proves true, then we may see Jaqen approach Arya once again after the fight, ready to provide her with aid.

Surly this highly irresponsible behavior wouldnt be a reason for people to suddenly vote Trump? I would imagine people who burn the US flag would be in the minority? To my knowledge, currently, the most violent activists aren't Hillary supporters or Bernie supporters or Trump supporters, but anti-Trump activists. This is not the first story of protestors lashing out at Trump supporters.

I'm curious about your argument as to why you think this. I'm not convinced either way yet - I feel like it's a complete tossup right now what will happen - but maybe you can convince me your way. With just the never-ending amount of bad and worse and even worse news for Hillary in regards to her emails lately, I feel much more optimistic about it now than I have in the past...so what makes you so sure? At the end of the day the FBI can only make a recomendation. The DOJ is the one empowered to seek and indictment. Who is running that organization again? If the FBI recomends in favor of and the DOJ declines it looks bad. But they will not disrupt an election they are likely to win to actually DO justice. Besides, justice is not what the DOJ is all about anymore anyway. Aren't there multiple people that've gone on record stating they'd release and expose the emails if the FBI doesn't indict? From workers within the FBI themselves to Russian government officials who've claimed having gained access to her server? I'll admit I'm not watching this election as closely as I should given wtf what's there to watch (I don't need to watch the entirety of a trainwreck to determine "yep that's a trainwreck"), but I seem to remember at least those two, if not more people, threatening they were gonna release the emails in their entirety if an indictment didn't happen. Likewise, I recall an interview with Edward Snowden regarding the emails. I trust Edward Snowden, and I distinctly recall him dropping a rather fascinatingly high number of attempted hack attempts per day on government servers and citing that as a reason why only the most extreme security measures are acceptable, as well as explaining how painfully obvious it should've been to her or ANY government official about why what she did was a blatant circumvention of the law. Granted, those threats may be ignored and the indictment may not happen and instead we'll just get an email scandal as the info becomes public knowledge, but you better believe there's motivation to follow through with an indictment as well.