Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.

Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Starving bears don't respect any of our rights so I guess we have none? The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them. Nobody has a right to rape or murder somebody even if some societies don't respect that right it doesn't mean that murder and rape don't violate a person's inherent right to be secure in their own person and life.

Yep. We have no inherent rights, unless you consider death a right. My point is that rights are an abstraction. There is nothing inherent about them at all. The reason we don't have the right to rape and murder is because our particular culture has outlawed those activities. There are and have been many cultures that normalize rape and murder.

Societies and social norms are abstract constructs, rights already exist. How can you argue that your body and your life don't belong to you? Who else would they belong to? You're alive, you have a body, it's yours, it's not somebody else's body. Since it isn't somebody else's body why would somebody else have a right to it? To create that right to somebody else's body you first have to create a society and build into that society the concept that it's ok to own other people's bodies. To acknowledge that fact that your body is yours you don't need to construct any society or social values at all.

You can tell yourself you have any right you want to. It doesn't really mean anything unless there is a law codified to define it, as well as structures to protect it.

In modern society, it is almost unthinkable that one person would have rights over another body and life. In other societies, it would have been plain as the nose on your face to either own or be owned by another human.

We had to fight a bloody war to get that right codified and respected. There was nothing inherent about the right. It needed to be fought for.

 Vaktathi wrote:
A wall is a stupid idea. Maintaining a constand armed garrison is extremely expensive, and even in places where walls exist today, they are routinely (and literally) undermined and bypassed. They also dont fly well socially or culturally for a society like ours. Reference Berlin. And no, Mexico is never going to fund the bulding of a wall, if anyone is *actually* thinking that there is even a remote chance that will happen, you are insane. Additionally, most people come through at an actual crossing anyway, not something a wall would stop.

More to the point, there are compelling interests in the US that drive it. Without migrant (and largely illegal) labor, agriculture becomes dramatically more expensive. Who works in the fields of central CA and the ranches of Texas? Largely migrant and illegal workers.

The best option? Work on helping conditions in these people's home countries and redirecting the domestic demand for that labor to something else. Without that, you can build all the walls you like, it wont change anything.

True. We get migrant and illegal labor in the US because our labor laws and domestic policies incentivize it and large sectors of the economy, agriculture, construction, etc. profit from it. We don't get illegal immigration because we don't have a wall we get illegal immigration because domestic interests want it and are motivated by profit to get it. Unless you remove the need for it we aren't going to stop it from happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.

Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Starving bears don't respect any of our rights so I guess we have none? The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them. Nobody has a right to rape or murder somebody even if some societies don't respect that right it doesn't mean that murder and rape don't violate a person's inherent right to be secure in their own person and life.

Yep. We have no inherent rights, unless you consider death a right. My point is that rights are an abstraction. There is nothing inherent about them at all. The reason we don't have the right to rape and murder is because our particular culture has outlawed those activities. There are and have been many cultures that normalize rape and murder.

Societies and social norms are abstract constructs, rights already exist. How can you argue that your body and your life don't belong to you? Who else would they belong to? You're alive, you have a body, it's yours, it's not somebody else's body. Since it isn't somebody else's body why would somebody else have a right to it? To create that right to somebody else's body you first have to create a society and build into that society the concept that it's ok to own other people's bodies. To acknowledge that fact that your body is yours you don't need to construct any society or social values at all.

You can tell yourself you have any right you want to. It doesn't really mean anything unless there is a law codified to define it, as well as structures to protect it.

In modern society, it is almost unthinkable that one person would have rights over another body and life. In other societies, it would have been plain as the nose on your face to either own or be owned by another human.

We had to fight a bloody war to get that right codified and respected. There was nothing inherent about the right. It needed to be fought for.

The right already existed. People already knew that people had a right to their own bodies. We had society where we didn't recognize all people as being people, that was the problem. That's why once we emancipated the slaves and recognized them as people they had all the same rights as the other citizens. Slaves recognize the injustice of slavery and the violation of their right to own their own bodies and have self determination, that's why they revolt and why slavery has ceased to exist in modern societies, because modern socieities have all evolved to recognize our rights.

Asterios wrote:

Eminem is Black?

...


No, not literally every single person who so much as hummed part of a rap chorus is black or poor. A number of musicians have been decently paid because they bring in even more money than they're given to the recording company they're signed with. A few make it big enough to go on their own and be their own label. Blues and jazz were black once and rock frightened an entire nation before companies stepped in, whitewashed it and made it safe for sale. Rap has spread across the world and been embraced by millions but its roots are undeniable.

Asterios wrote:
but go ahead and be a racist and think all white people are thinking the way you are thinking we are thinking.

I specified people who go on about Islam taking over the West, not all white people.

Asterios wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
A wall is a stupid idea. Maintaining a constand armed garrison is extremely expensive, and even in places where walls exist today, they are routinely (and literally) undermined and bypassed. They also dont fly well socially or culturally for a society like ours. Reference Berlin. And no, Mexico is never going to fund the bulding of a wall, if anyone is *actually* thinking that there is even a remote chance that will happen, you are insane. Additionally, most people come through at an actual crossing anyway, not something a wall would stop.

More to the point, there are compelling interests in the US that drive it. Without migrant (and largely illegal) labor, agriculture becomes dramatically more expensive. Who works in the fields of central CA and the ranches of Texas? Largely migrant and illegal workers.

The best option? Work on helping conditions in these people's home countries and redirecting the domestic demand for that labor to something else. Without that, you can build all the walls you like, it wont change anything.

and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.

Having lived in some of these places much of my life and worked in some of these industries, migrant and illegal workers are huge portions of the workforce. These people arent just coming over and sitting on their asses, you cant get by doing that, especially for any extended period of time.

Having done far more time than I care for in places like Fresno or Bakersfield and Lodi, I can't ever recall a natural US citizen pulling veggies or picking grapes in those fields. Not one. Some of the workers come in through legal migrant worker programs, but by no means all. The exploitation of that cheap labor source ia a huge drive for that illegal immigration, one that both producers and consumers dont like to acknowledge all that often.

Prestor Jon wrote:

True. We get migrant and illegal labor in the US because our labor laws and domestic policies incentivize it and large sectors of the economy, agriculture, construction, etc. profit from it. We don't get illegal immigration because we don't have a wall we get illegal immigration because domestic interests want it and are motivated by profit to get it. Unless you remove the need for it we aren't going to stop it from happening.

Aye, and increased emphasis on enforcement of existing laws, a drive for greater mechanization, and some changes in consumer habits and expectations would go a very long way to cutting down on the demand for illegal immigrant labor, as would assistance developing these nations where large numbers of migrants come from to remove the supply side of the equation.

Asterios wrote:

and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.

A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.

http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/farm-workers-immigration/

Rosebuddy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Eminem is Black?

...


No, not literally every single person who so much as hummed part of a rap chorus is black or poor. A number of musicians have been decently paid because they bring in even more money than they're given to the recording company they're signed with. A few make it big enough to go on their own and be their own label. Blues and jazz were black once and rock frightened an entire nation before companies stepped in, whitewashed it and made it safe for sale. Rap has spread across the world and been embraced by millions but its roots are undeniable.

Asterios wrote:
but go ahead and be a racist and think all white people are thinking the way you are thinking we are thinking.

I specified people who go on about Islam taking over the West, not all white people.

me i'm not worried about Muslims or Islamics, only the radical versions of them same with radical Christians and so forth, also don't think people are talking about Islam taking over the west (except for a few nutcases) but about Terrorists who are Islamic. but then you love throwing around that race card and bigotry card and thinking all white folk being thinking the same thing.

Asterios wrote:


me i'm not worried about Muslims or Islamics, only the radical versions of them same with radical Christians and so forth, also don't think people are talking about Islam taking over the west (except for a few nutcases) but about Terrorists who are Islamic. but then you love throwing around that race card and bigotry card and thinking all white folk being thinking the same thing.

I notice a recurring theme where you keep assuming people are talking about you...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.

A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.

http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/farm-workers-immigration/

yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:


me i'm not worried about Muslims or Islamics, only the radical versions of them same with radical Christians and so forth, also don't think people are talking about Islam taking over the west (except for a few nutcases) but about Terrorists who are Islamic. but then you love throwing around that race card and bigotry card and thinking all white folk being thinking the same thing.

I notice a recurring theme where you keep assuming people are talking about you...

well lets see the comment was made about Trump Supporters, i'm a Trump supporter, so yeah considering the OP decided to lump us all together guess i'm included in that.

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.

A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.

http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/farm-workers-immigration/

yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.

From the page:

it is estimated that at least 6 out of 10 of our country’s farm workers are undocumented

So, no, it doesn't.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.

A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.

http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/farm-workers-immigration/

yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.

From the page:

it is estimated that at least 6 out of 10 of our country’s farm workers are undocumented

So, no, it doesn't.

estimated, let me give you an example, back when i worked the cherry fields all of my fellow employees there were there legally, but where is the proof of this estimation given on a pro legalization of illegals site?

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.

A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.

http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/farm-workers-immigration/

yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:


me i'm not worried about Muslims or Islamics, only the radical versions of them same with radical Christians and so forth, also don't think people are talking about Islam taking over the west (except for a few nutcases) but about Terrorists who are Islamic. but then you love throwing around that race card and bigotry card and thinking all white folk being thinking the same thing.

I notice a recurring theme where you keep assuming people are talking about you...

well lets see the comment was made about Trump Supporters, i'm a Trump supporter, so yeah considering the OP decided to lump us all together guess i'm included in that.

But I thought you said Trump 'wasn't your guy', you were just voting for him because you didn't want Clinton to win?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

True. We get migrant and illegal labor in the US because our labor laws and domestic policies incentivize it and large sectors of the economy, agriculture, construction, etc. profit from it. We don't get illegal immigration because we don't have a wall we get illegal immigration because domestic interests want it and are motivated by profit to get it. Unless you remove the need for it we aren't going to stop it from happening.

Aye, and increased emphasis on enforcement of existing laws, a drive for greater mechanization, and some changes in consumer habits and expectations would go a very long way to cutting down on the demand for illegal immigrant labor, as would assistance developing these nations where large numbers of migrants come from to remove the supply side of the equation.

Agreed. It would also help a lot if we took better care of our visa system.

Nearly 500K foreigners overstayed visas in 2015
Alan Gomez, USA TODAY 12:52 p.m. EST January 20, 2016

MIAMI — Nearly half a million foreigners who legally entered the U.S. remained here after their visas expired last year, according to a government study that is the first of its kind.

The report, obtained by USA TODAY, is the first analysis of a population that is largely unknown. The so-called "visa overstays" represent an estimated 40% of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, but are overshadowed by undocumented immigrants who sneak across the nation's southwest border with Mexico.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/19/immigration-visa-overstays-department-of-homeland-security-report/79026708/

Tracking and policing visa overstays is difficult and not nearly as much fun as ranting about giant walls that will never get built but it would be a big help to our immigration policy.

Of course politicians don't care about fixing problems they care about campaigning about problems and using them to help get elected.

 Spinner wrote:

But I thought you said Trump 'wasn't your guy', you were just voting for him because you didn't want Clinton to win?

which would make me a Trump supporter, since I want him to win and not Hillary.

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.

A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.

http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/farm-workers-immigration/

yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.

From the page:

it is estimated that at least 6 out of 10 of our country’s farm workers are undocumented

So, no, it doesn't.

estimated,

And...? I also mentioned that I saw 4/10 repeated. Which I got from a single google search Those are still more than "the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field". That 30-60% is a quite significant amount.

let me give you an example, back when i worked the cherry fields all of my fellow employees there were there legally,

And I work at a horse show, and about 95% of the laborers are undocumented. Anecdotal evidence for anecdotal evidence!

but where is the proof of this estimation given on a pro legalization of illegals site?

In the page one would think. They source the SPLC, but sadly not a link, so I ;ooked and found another one just for you.

https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/NAWS%20data%20factsht%201-13-15FINAL.pdf

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.

A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.

http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/farm-workers-immigration/

yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.

From the page:

it is estimated that at least 6 out of 10 of our country’s farm workers are undocumented

So, no, it doesn't.

estimated, let me give you an example, back when i worked the cherry fields all of my fellow employees there were there legally, but where is the proof of this estimation given on a pro legalization of illegals site?

Glad to know that your "work in the cherry fields" is homogeneous with the rest of the farms in america

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.

A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.

http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/farm-workers-immigration/

yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.

From the page:

it is estimated that at least 6 out of 10 of our country’s farm workers are undocumented

So, no, it doesn't.

estimated,

And...? I also mentioned that I saw 4/10 repeated. Which I got from a single google search Those are still more than "the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field". That 30-60% is a quite significant amount.

let me give you an example, back when i worked the cherry fields all of my fellow employees there were there legally,

And I work at a horse show, and about 95% of the laborers are undocumented. Anecdotal evidence for anecdotal evidence!

but where is the proof of this estimation given on a pro legalization of illegals site?

In the page one would think. They source the SPLC, but sadly not a link, so I ;ooked and found another one just for you.

https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/NAWS%20data%20factsht%201-13-15FINAL.pdf

and what horse show is that? I call your anecdotal evidence. and say you are bluffing, since my aunt runs horse shows up in Northern California and her workers are inspected thoroughly.

and look another pro-illegal site giving guestimates or if they don't respond to the survey they are illegal, got anything better? also a survey from back in 89-93 real up to date.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The right already existed. People already knew that people had a right to their own bodies. We had society where we didn't recognize all people as being people, that was the problem. That's why once we emancipated the slaves and recognized them as people they had all the same rights as the other citizens. Slaves recognize the injustice of slavery and the violation of their right to own their own bodies and have self determination, that's why they revolt and why slavery has ceased to exist in modern societies, because modern socieities have all evolved to recognize our rights.

OK, we can just agree to disagree. I don't think that human political progress is the tale of a species discovering what rights it inherently has. I think human political progress has been made by people defining and demanding rights that they wish to enjoy, and fighting for those rights in one way or another.

I do not believe our DNA comes equipped with a set of rights, nor do I believe there is a magical right-giver that bestows rights.

Asterios wrote:


and what horse show is that? I call your anecdotal evidence. and say you are bluffing, since my aunt runs horse shows up in Northern California and her workers are inspected thoroughly.

HITS
Talking about the ones that the various farms bring in. Not so sure about the show it'self, but I don't doubt they have some. The equine industry in the US would collapse without immigrant labor.

and look another pro-illegal site giving guestimates or if they don't respond to the survey they are illegal, got anything better?

Actually they cite the National Agricultural Worker Survey. Maybe actually read the source.

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

The right already existed. People already knew that people had a right to their own bodies. We had society where we didn't recognize all people as being people, that was the problem. That's why once we emancipated the slaves and recognized them as people they had all the same rights as the other citizens. Slaves recognize the injustice of slavery and the violation of their right to own their own bodies and have self determination, that's why they revolt and why slavery has ceased to exist in modern societies, because modern socieities have all evolved to recognize our rights.

OK, we can just agree to disagree. I don't think that human political progress is the tale of a species discovering what rights it inherently has. I think human political progress has been made by people defining and demanding rights that they wish to enjoy, and fighting for those rights in one way or another.

I do not believe our DNA comes equipped with a set of rights, nor do I believe there is a magical right-giver that bestows rights.

I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to DNA but I think our concept of natural rights is inherent to us having consciousness and being self aware. Then we utilize our awareness of ourselves and our rights to determine if we want to build a society that recognizes them.

If you think we've exhausted the utility of this tangent then I'll agree to let it end here.

We can let it end here. It's an interesting subject to me, but maybe a bit abstract for the purpose of this particular thread.

I was grateful for Jasper76 and Prestor Jon's tangent: it gave me a greater understanding of their core beliefs.

When usually are VPs chosen? I am curious who will be chosen.

I'm not sure if there is a usual time. It would probably be advantageous to both nominees to have a running mate by the convention, I'd think.

I'd like to see Clinton run with Elizabeth Warren. Who the hell knows who Trump will pick. Gene Simmons?

Clinton won't pick warren, she will probably go with a midwest state like indiana for her VP pick.

Asterios wrote:


this is not a fence it is a wall

TIL a fence and a wall are different things, especially when used to demarcate property lines. Are their height / thickness requirements for the differences? Like is 6 feet of wood plank a fence but 3 feet of stone is a wall?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:


Who the hell knows who Trump will pick. Gene Simmons?

Ted Nugent?

Trump and Nugent running on the bat gak crazy ticket

 AdeptSister wrote:
I was grateful for Jasper76 and Prestor Jon's tangent: it gave me a greater understanding of their core beliefs.

When usually are VPs chosen? I am curious who will be chosen.

Think VP's are announced at the conventions. you know to announce them.

Asterios wrote:
and what horse show is that? I call your anecdotal evidence. and say you are bluffing, since my aunt runs horse shows up in Northern California and her workers are inspected thoroughly.

and look another pro-illegal site giving guestimates or if they don't respond to the survey they are illegal, got anything better? also a survey from back in 89-93 real up to date.

IOW: "let me talk all about how your evidence isn't convincing enough for me, while offering nothing more than anecdotes to support my own position". Right now you're losing the credibility battle pretty badly.

 whembly wrote:
...and here's the final report broken down nicely in BEFORE/DURING/AFTER sections:

Yeah, so after 8 previous investigations failed to turn up anything meaningful, Republicans decided to run their own investigation and reach their own conclusions. Shockingly they found that Clinton and Obama were to blame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
There are parents that might harm their child if he/she got a tattoo without permission so the state requires that minors obtain parental consent first.

With a tattoo then refusing it without parental permission means that the person has to wait until they're 18, and in the meantime they'll just have to live with skin that doesn't have ink injected in to it. If you require a similar waiting period for a minor, then that minor will go through pregnancy, give birth, and then have a baby that they will have to care for or give to the state.

Those two things are so different in such obvious ways that the only possible conclusion is that you are choosing to engage in completely dishonest debate on this subject. I don't know why you've chosen to pretend to believe silly things, but stop it because you're wasting everyone's time, especially your own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

And here you are, again, attempting this defense that because some group isn't a race, then it isn't racism. Which is true but ridiculous, because believing crude stereotypes about a culture may not be racism but it's still bigotry and that is just as bad.

Also, holy gak you're still here after that stuff you said about Jews? Wow.

 jasper76 wrote:
Who the hell knows who Trump will pick. Gene Simmons?

Personally I'm hoping for Carly Fiorina just for the possibility of her being knocked out three times in one political cycle.

 sebster wrote:
Also, holy gak you're still here after that stuff you said about Jews? Wow.

I mean, I had assumed the ice was already thin before that but apparently some generalizations have a greater latitude than others? Not sure what other conclusions it's possible to draw from that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Personally I'm hoping for Carly Fiorina just for the possibility of her being knocked out three times in one political cycle.

Aw man. This cracked me up pretty bad.