Enoch

I'm never going to understand this line of thinking. It is self perpetuating. We have a system in place that allows for change. We have the means to do it. We even have historical precedent to look at. The odds are it will not happen in this election. But that doesn't mean everyone should just roll over and accept our new overlord. Over 40% of people don't even vote, and I doubt self defeatist statements like this help move that needle. Ross Perot captured nearly 19% of the vote in '92, but he was an independent and was not able to build on that momentum. Johnson may pull of similar numbers by the end of this. I don't know if he can capitalize on that either, or if the Libertarian party can build on it, but I see know reason not to place some hope in it. Well, there's a difference between talking about a third party in the abstract, and talking about a specific third party with the Libertarian platform. Perot was largely a centrist who was focused particularly on 2 main issues (NAFTA and the debt) that he and his voters didn't think the major parties offered good options on. The Libertarians, on the other hand, have a full slate of policy positions, and those policy positions are simply not that popular with the voters. "A third candidate" could arguably get up to 20%, sure. A third-party candidate running on the LP platform is going to have a much tougher time, absent some fairly substantial changes in the popularity of many of their core positions.

What's wrong with "support"? The U.S. military is dominant because it can project force at will just about anywhere in the world. That takes a massive amount of "support" to make happen. The salaries and equipment for a special ops team is pennies next to the cost of the aircraft used to get them in and out, the satellites used to supply them intel, and the medical care to treat their injuries for the rest of their lives. That's just how it works; I'm not sure how your point about "actual front liners" is relevant to anything. That said, sure, there is lots to criticize in the DOD budget, and there are lots of grounds for reasonable discussion. The problem is that nothing that comes out of the GOP candidate's mouth on the issue can even remotely be characterized as such.

We took the kids to the Udvar-Hazy Center last weekend. It's basically where they put all the stuff they can't fit in the Air & Space museum on the Mall, including the Space Shuttle Discovery. I figured that all the planes and rockets would be a big hit with the 2.5-year-old. He saw the first one hanging from the ceiling as we walked in and immediately complained that "It's not on!" Apparently, it's not enough to see a giant hangar filled with historic planes, helicopters, rockets, and spacecraft-- he needs to see them in operation. (Luckily, the cafeteria there has a nice view of the approach to the runway at nearby Dulles Airport, so he did get to see some planes go by rather close.) Next time, I guess we're going to Gravelly Point.

Do you think it is a worse state because that is what Trump is saying? Is this part of the plan to lower our debt? I live in Britain, so just going by what he said - which was pretty specific (not sure if he could lie about this stuff) but he pretty much went through army number of boots on the ground, ships, and air force ("they're flying the planes their fathers flew" i think was the sentence) and that under Obama and Hillary the cost over the past 10 years has been 6 trillion - I think estimates at 75,000 per American household. I don't know your average salary, but expect that's about 2-3 years worth. http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789 I mean, the man is specific. I don't know what Hillary's take on this is. The last time I heard her say anything, it was about shutting down Infowars and Breitbart. Kinda makes me worry when I hear this - same crap in Britain. They are actually saying the military isn't up to scratch. The right wing talking points on military decline are entirely built on cherry-picked stats. There are always winners and losers in the internal-DOD budget struggle (more UAVs, fewer fighter jets; more cruise missiles, fewer attack submarines), so it's easy to build a facile case for whichever of growth or decline is most politically convenient to you. Sure, there are fewer planes and ships than there used to be, but the ones they have are vastly more capable. Yes, some of the hardware is reaching the end of its (quite long) effective life, but they're still delivering modern munitions and kicking the ass of everything they face. And blaming Obama in particular is especially odd-- the defense budget as a whole is larger now than it has been in the last 30 years. What you're seeing is basically folks who were convinced 8 years ago that Obama would be a disaster trying their best to convince you that they were right, in spite of the available evidence.

When the hell are desperate teams going to learn that they should stop bailing the Eagles out of all their mistakes with insanely lopsided trades??! Has trading for a QB on the Eagles ever worked out well for anybody?

Oh, he'll certainly try. And probably screw it up just as badly. The GOP is having to deal with Trump in part because all the folks who they thought/hoped would be the young saviors of the party-- Rubio, Walker, Jindal-- turned out to be really awful at facing any kind of campaign adversity.

I disagree-- I think that cuts in precisely the opposite direction. An official's boss is always going to have far better information about that official's performance than does the public at large. If you're worried about corruption, you replace the guy at the top, not in the middle.

Yeah, I had the same reaction when I moved to Maryland. The general public is being asked to opine on who should fill positions like the Registrar of Wills? How many ordinary citizens have an informed opinion of that position? It usually ends up with the incumbent running un-opposed until retirement. And the election of judges, in particular, comes with a host of ethical problems. I grew up in NJ, which, despite it's many many other problems with government administration, generally has a more sane attitude of letting the top officials stand for election and filling the lesser roles (and judiciary) with appointees.

The 2-year-old (2-and-a-half today, actually) has had some trouble being dropped off at daycare for the past couple days, which has never really been a huge deal for him in the past. He's been extra irritable because he's got 2 molars coming in, which are costing him some sleep. According to his teachers, he calms down after I've left and is relatively normal for the rest of the day. They also brought him by the infants room to visit his almost-4-month-old brother (who started in the daycare on Monday), which helped him calm down. Still, yesterday evening, I asked him what he did at school that day, and the only summary he could come up with was "I gave daddy a big hug, and he went away, and I was sad." In other news, I am further frustrated by the scheduling difficulties that keep interfering with my gaming group. It's being done over video-chat, intended to run for a couple hours in the evening as frequently as weekly, but, in practice, much less often. The GM is a co-worker who also has a toddler, so in-person sessions have become somewhat un-workable. Anyhow, he is running us through Basic D&D Mystara modules, re-worked for a Pathfinder ruleset, which has been a lot of fun-- a good combination of nerd-culture history and nostalgia, spiced up with all the near-broken ruleset-sprawl that is Pathfinder. The problem is those pesky non-parents in the group. They're all "I have to work nights sometimes" and "I'm taking a trip to Iceland" and "I do things in the evening beyond simply putting the kids to bed at 7:30 and collapsing on the couch!" The session that was supposed to be last night is now going to be next Monday. For now. Someday we'll recover the Eye of Traldar, but I think my kids might be rolling up characters before we get there...

I'll second that Kitchen Basics makes the best-tasting chicken stock that you can find in most grocery stores. I haven't done thorough brand comparisons with beef/veg/fish/etc. stocks. Also, you can improve any store-bought stock significantly by simply simmering it for a little while with some basic aromatics and herbs. That is, half an onion, a carrot, a few ribs of celery, and a fistful of fresh parsley and/or thyme (or the stems from herbs you've already used up), all of which you strain out before using the stock as indicated in the soup recipe. If you're going to be serious about making soup-- or anything else, really-- these are all staples that you should have in your kitchen (or herb garden) at all times. It won't taste quite like homemade, but it'll be noticeably closer. Lastly, Hurl, your last 2 links both go to the same place. I suspect the final one was supposed to go here instead.

Everybody? Really? How would that even work? My point is mainly that there is no such thing. Voters pick their preference among the candidates on the ballot. That preference is relative, not absolute-- they think that this guy/gal will do a better job than the others. It's not "positive" or "negative," it's "that guy/gal over the other guys/gals." What you're really asking for is for voters to do so without any regard for which of these folks has a realistic chance of winning. Which I'd say is asking voters to be idiots who give no thought to how best to get the policies they care about implemented. The system as it is structured rewards strategic thought on the part of parties, advocacy groups, and voters. Absent serious Constitutional change (e.g., a more parliamentary-style system of preferential voting), the political equilibrium in America is going to keep returning to two major parties that are relatively centrist. Those parties have been the Dems and the GOP for the last century-plus because their policy platforms have been far more popular than the other alternatives that have been posed.

And he also stated that he is not going to do it anymore and vote for who he align with no matter if he will get there or not so what is your point now? Its sad if you can't stand behind your own beliefs Well, that's a decision to do something different entirely. GD thinks that it's more important to support the long-term growth of a minor party whose platform he likes than it is to help the country decide between the candidate who have a serious chance. That's a reasonable response, but it's essentially using one's vote for the presidency to do something other than vote for president (except by absence-- the impact is the same as staying home). One person's "stand behind your beliefs" is another person's "demand that the world cater to your preferences." I'm not saying that GD's stance is such-- his belief in building his party's stature is sincere, and that's a reasonable thing for a civic-minded individual to do with their vote. I think less of those who decide based on indifference, frustration, knee-jerk cynicism, lulz, etc.

Eh, I don't see what's so wrong with negative voting. Fundamentally, the voters are never being asked to judge each candidate in a vacuum. It's always a relative consideration-- which of the serious candidates do you think would do a better job and support policies most in-line with your preferences? Whether one considers that a "positive" or a "negative" vote is wholly arbitrary. That GD has cast a lot of votes that he considers "negative" in the past says at least as much about him as it does about the candidates.

Also, shouldn't it be "New New Orleans"? The North American city is already "New." "Fallout: New Orleans" would have to be in France.

Yeah, much like the whole "Russia, please hack Hillary" thing, this was pretty clearly a not-particularly-coherent attempt at a joke. I wouldn't call the coverage particularly biased, though-- you'd see over-the-top headlines had any candidate said something like this. This is what the media does-- spot a "gaffe" and broadcast it far and wide. It's the easiest kind of campaign reporting to do, and it draws eyeballs far better than policy analysis or poll results. (It probably feels like bias against Trump because he says idiotic stuff like this so regularly. Shockingly, when you nominate a candidate who thinks that observing common standards of decency in public discourse is a bad thing, you're going to get a candidate who says a lot of poorly considered stuff.)

Could be just the four degrees of separation thing. Edit: Also remember the Clintons are connected to many more people than an average person. Just Bill's mistresses have to be in the thousands. Most people also don't have an army of conspiracy theorists and hack-journalist enablers desperate to tie them to any and all potentially nefarious conduct that happens within a sparrow's flight of any building they once walked into. The playbook is simple-- the public will laugh off the occasional ridiculous accusation, but if you throw an endless stream of ridiculous accusations at the wall for 30+ years, folks who aren't paying very close attention will start to wonder whether there's fire behind all that smoke.

@GD, The thing is, I don't buy the "irredeemably corrupt" line. If she's really irredeemably corrupt, and trying to profit personally from her positions of power, she's really quite bad at it. She'd have made more money simply signing up as a partner with a law firm after Bill's term. Hell, the beneficiary of most of the payouts people are highlighting has been a charity that gets pretty good marks for transparency. The folks who hate her have succeeded in establishing a general air of scandal around her-- 1 slightly smelly accusation doesn't make much of a stir, but follow it up with 27 bs accusations, and folks who aren't paying very very close attention will start to think that there's probably fire behind that smoke. (Which, again, isn't to say that she hasn't honestly screwed some things up.) Also, more generally, I like you, and I appreciate seeing your viewpoint around here, but the Johnson spam is getting tiresome. We get it-- you're a Libertarian. Does every post really have to feature that call to action?

I will start this by saying I am not a fan of HC. I do think she has done many unsavory things in her career, but most of the other times it wasn't easily proven. In this case, whether or not it was for nefarious purposes or was intentional is irrelevant. The law states that negligence is enough. Comey even said she was extremely careless. Negligence and carlessness are one in the same. There are many from the military and smaller fish on capital hill that have been tossed in jail or lost their position for less. Patreus (sp), for instance. "Oops" doesn't cut it when discussing confidential papers because if it did then we would know everything because people would let crap slip all the time. If they don't fear the sword then they would be even more careless. Not to mention she lied to congress multiple times when they grilled her. "Was anything classified?" HC: No. Comey: 3 emails were marked classified. "Did you use multiple devices?" HC: No, only one device. Comey: Yes, multiple devices were used. Bill Clinton was nearly impeached for lying to congress about much less important things. My two cents is they aren't prosecuting at the present because of a couple reasons. If they did it would cascade into ANYONE that sent her an email to that domain, and didn't report her using a private email. Which means it could liquidate the majority of Capital Hill, and probably all the Obama Administration. Another reason is that Obama could very well step in and pardon her. Seeing that it would save his bacon too... Yeah, he probably would. Perhaps, they aren't running forward just yet because they are waiting till after the election and Obama to step down. One of the Laws that she potentially broke actually removes her ability to run from any public office. So, it's an incredibly odd situation. If she isn't charged then I view it as proof that there is now an example that many people at the top are immune to the rule of law. When rule of law is completely ignored at the top is when this Government is steering toward something much more nefarious. That means the plebs still must follow the laws, but those elites are exempt. Laws only work if we follow them and punish those who break them without exception. When laws aren't followed, and punishment not delivered for breaking them, then we set precedent that tells everyone else that they can ignore them as well. This was discussed at length a few iterations of this thread ago, but Comey's conclusion was reasonable. He was not being asked if a case could technically be made for criminal prosecution-- he was being asked whether a prosecution was worthwhile based on past results and the strength of the evidence. He looked at past results and concluded that absent evidence of treasonous intent, massive quantities of information, or obstruction of justice, such a prosecution would have been unprecedented. (With Patraeus, there was evidence that he deliberately leaked information, rather than simply put it in an unsafe container, and that he obstructed the subsequent investigation.) Unless he was lying about the strength of the evidence, she was treated consistently with how other (non-famous) suspects were in the past-- historically, such violations have been taken care of with employment discipline (reprimand, loss of clearance, or termination) rather than criminal punishment. And, on classified stuff in general: The overwhelming reaction of nearly everybody who gets a security clearance and begins to access classified information is "Seriously, they classified this?" Way way too much stuff gets classified, because the authorities with the power to do it lack any reason not to. The attitude is often that, if something isn't classified, everybody who matters will assume it is unimportant. It is not shocking that somebody in a position like SecState might get a little numb to the dire warnings on yet another country report stamped "Secret," despite having been cribbed together mostly from back issues of The Economist. It doesn't say great things about her that she missed a few, and if you view that as disqualifying, I can't say that's not a valid choice. But it's also not necessarily a sign that she's covering up her scheme to weaken America from the inside as a precursor to the inevitable Uraguayan invasion.

I'll second Leferd's points to the effect that many/most Clinton supporters like her. I'll take a pass at explaining why. I don't necessarily agree with 100% of what is below, but I am close to several people who do. Her persistence is admirable. Since the moment she appeared as a public figure, there has been a vocal segment of the population who despise her beyond reason and have been willing and eager to believe and promote any and all ridiculous theories that cast her in a negative light. (First, she was a hardcore-feminist socialist ideologue; later amended to a craven waffler with no principles.) After Bill's term ended, it would have been very easy for her to slip into private practice as a lobbyist, attorney, corporate board member, etc., and make a lot more money than you do in public office. But that would've meant that the haters won. So **** them. (The standard retort to such is to cast this persistence as power-mad ambition. And here's where folks see sexism. Whether it's acknowledged or not, public perception of ambitious qualities in women are almost always perceived as more negative than the same in men. Everybody who runs for President is ambitious-- why is it only the women who are disliked for it?) She also has a wonk's approach to policy-- understands nuance, learns the fine points, and can apply them. She's smart, and a capable manager of large organizations. This contributes to the perception that she has no persistent principles, though, because it's hard to stick to bumper-sticker slogans when you understand that the devil is always in the details. It's a rare politician who can both handle policy on a detailed level like that and deliver effective campaign-trail soundbites, and that she's not. That said, she has done some dumb things, usually out of reflexive concern for privacy. While I can understand why a public figure who has been attacked as relentlessly as she has for 3 decades is going to want to be very careful about what is or isn't in public view, the whole private email server thing was really stupid. (And it was super-dumb for the Department's attorneys and IT folks to let her do it.) Those determined to hate her assume that this was done to cover for something nefarious, but none of that has ever been proven (despite insane amounts of investigation), and there are still folks willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

I have a friend who makes his own mead, and he did at one point shell out for mail-order Tupelo honey. The resulting mead was indeed weird-- all sorts of distinctive vegetal notes in the flavor. Personally, I favored the melomel he made by incorporating red currants into the honey, but it was a worthy sip. There are a few trees near my house that produce a ridiculous amount of crab-apples every autumn-- I've been trying to convince him that a crab-apple cyser would be a worthwhile project. (For my part, as soon as somebody starts to mention sterilization procedures, I remember that there is perfectly good booze for sale at reasonable prices just a few blocks away from my house.)

Hilarious.Snowden actually commented and stated that if Russia were responsible, the US government would know and it wouldn't be "speculation," suggesting (big surprise) Russia isn't behind this. Trump believing the very media rigged in Hillary's favor is priceless though. An aside, but the faith in Snowden's anything is sort of funny. Please explain what reason anyone has to distrust anything said by Snowden. The man got in trouble because he showed integrity and transparency when the government did not. Well for example your example from him. Also for some, granted the scum on reddit, he is like a god when it comes to anything on security yet Scheier is a nobody. Not quite sure he has shown transparency. Mostly as what does he have to be transparent about. Whether you agree or disagree with his actions does not give cause for not trusting him at his word. You've not named an example not to trust him beyond "when he was entrusted with withholding information that the American public knew nothing of and would be upset about if they knew, he told them." That? That's a very particular type of trust that was broken, and by no means representative of a bold-faced liar. Snowden is presently being sheltered from prosecution in the U.S. by the Russian government. On matters related to Russo-American counter-intelligence, he's right behind Putin on the list of folks who I would trust least.

Behold the consequences of 3 decades spent telling the voters that they can't trust media organizations! (And, you know, the internet killing the economic viability of local investigative reporting.)

Because that would be stupid and self-destructive. First, because it's too late in the process to get on the ballot in a critical mass of states. Second, because it would sabotage their policy goals and, consequently, career. We tend to get caught up in the personalities, but there are rather huge policy differences between the major candidates. Anybody who cares about tax rates, economic opportunity, immigration, environmental policy, education, energy, etc., would just end up undermining whoever of Trump or Clinton is closer to their views, and hand the election to the one who they like least. But this in of itself perpetuates the same exact problem that's touching on most of the world's problems today: "too big to fail." It creates a dependency on these terribly loathed candidates that prevents us from ever acting out against them, which affords ridiculous levels of control and lee-way to them, which just results in more problems. It only causes problems if they do poorly when in office, which is not something for which their likeability on the campaign trail is an especially good predictor. And let's not pretend that the primary process is a coronation. The story of the GOP primary was essentially the voters "acting out" against Jeb, Rubio, Walker, and the other "establishment" folks. Hillary was the favorite in 2008, and the "insurgent" is the one who ended up being the nominee. (This time around, Sanders outperformed expectations, but he was, in the end, less popular than Clinton was.)

Because that would be stupid and self-destructive. First, because it's too late in the process to get on the ballot in a critical mass of states. Second, because it would sabotage their policy goals and, consequently, career. We tend to get caught up in the personalities, but there are rather huge policy differences between the major candidates. Anybody who cares about tax rates, economic opportunity, immigration, environmental policy, education, energy, etc., would just end up undermining whoever of Trump or Clinton is closer to their views, and hand the election to the one who they like least.

Supporters Aggravated Bernie Sanders Didn't Use DNC Speech to Get Voters to Act Against their Own Self-Interest