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.
whembly wrote: He revoked Washington Post's press credential. (evidently Politico's as well)
well to be honest The Washington Post is not what I would call an icon of truth and honesty and put them on par with the Enquirer and such.
You say that without a trace of irony at the same time you start a thread with two stories from The Daily Caller and The Washington Examiner.
Impressive.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
not when you consider the Washington Posts owner and thereby their paper is very anti-trump and allegedly in a super-pac with Clinton, nah I mean them, problem is you used to find neutrality in journalism but its getting harder and harder to find today.
then there is the article they have that say Assault weapons should be banned, thought they would actually look into facts since Assault weapons and Automatic weapons have been banned for awhile now.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Asterios wrote: not when you consider the Washington Posts owner
Jeff Bezos? What about him?
their paper is very anti-trump and
No, they just hold Trump accountable for the fething ignorant verbal diarrhea that spews from his wordhole on a near constant basis. I know he thinks that's "unfair" so I'm sure you do too.
allegedly in a super-pac with Clinton,
Source on that? He's personally supported both Republicans and Democrats (mainly Democrats) and he regularly contributes the the Amazon Super-PAC, but that gives equally to Democrats and Republicans.
nah I mean them, problem is you used to find neutrality in journalism but its getting harder and harder to find today.
Again, you say that right after you start a thread with links to two extremely well known right-leaning news sources. As an avid reader of The Washington Post my entire life, the editorial board has a pretty balanced political stance.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Asterios wrote: not when you consider the Washington Posts owner
Jeff Bezos? What about him?
their paper is very anti-trump and
No, they just hold Trump accountable for the fething ignorant verbal diarrhea that spews from his wordhole on a near constant basis. I know he thinks that's "unfair" so I'm sure you do too.
allegedly in a super-pac with Clinton,
Source on that? He's personally supported both Republicans and Democrats (mainly Democrats) and he regularly contributes the the Amazon Super-PAC, but that gives equally to Democrats and Republicans.
nah I mean them, problem is you used to find neutrality in journalism but its getting harder and harder to find today.
Again, you say that right after you start a thread with links to two extremely well known right-leaning news sources. As an avid reader of The Washington Post my entire life, the editorial board has a pretty balanced political stance.
here a story that is pretty neutral and yet still mentions the ACLU accusing Christians (feel better?):
There’s a limit to how far PAC money can keep a candidate afloat (e.g. Jeb! Bush and Li’l Marco Rubio). For lack of a less conspiratorial word, every special interest needs a mouthpiece.
Not a known political financier, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos took a less direct route to political influence in purchasing the Washington Post in 2013. And though WaPo is a humongous organization, editorial leanings in the media tend to have a top-down effect.
Despite his nearly $55 billion net worth, Bezos has donated relatively small amounts to Democrats ($28,000) and Republicans ($4,000). Some, however, claim he’s similar to other tech entrepreneurs who support a libertarian, small-government platform.
The Post hasn’t formally endorsed Clinton, but its Editorial Board unmistakably condemned her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, in a January article titled “Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign.”
In the months since the Editorial Board’s unendorsement, the Post has been accused of repeatedly parroting Clinton’s agenda.
as it goes get ready Trump will win the election, for good or bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/14 04:03:20
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: As an avid reader of The Washington Post my entire life, the editorial board has a pretty balanced political stance.
No, it doesn't.
Also... some serious self awareness failure by HRC:
Hillary ClintonVerified account
@HillaryClinton
If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.
...
...
... Yeah... 'cuz, anyone under an FBI investigation is super sketchy maaaaan.
No, because I still don't give a feth what some dumbass on Twitter had to say and even less so what some editorial from some gak town in Alabama I don't care about nor live anywhere near to. Feel better?
as to Bezos like I said Allegedly:
Right, you're just asking questions.
as to this pretty neutral article, they kind of disagree with you.
Nothing on Salon is neutral in any sense of the word, especially when it comes to their hardcore love affair with Bernie Sanders.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/28/drudge_koch_soros_bezos_these_4_non_politicians_will_determine_the_next_president/
Jeff Bezos:
There’s a limit to how far PAC money can keep a candidate afloat (e.g. Jeb! Bush and Li’l Marco Rubio). For lack of a less conspiratorial word, every special interest needs a mouthpiece.
Not a known political financier, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos took a less direct route to political influence in purchasing the Washington Post in 2013. And though WaPo is a humongous organization, editorial leanings in the media tend to have a top-down effect.
Despite his nearly $55 billion net worth, Bezos has donated relatively small amounts to Democrats ($28,000) and Republicans ($4,000). Some, however, claim he’s similar to other tech entrepreneurs who support a libertarian, small-government platform.
The Post hasn’t formally endorsed Clinton, but its Editorial Board unmistakably condemned her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, in a January article titled “Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign.”
In the months since the Editorial Board’s unendorsement, the Post has been accused of repeatedly parroting Clinton’s agenda.
Okay, so the editorial board was rightly critical of Bernie Sanders' "They're all out to get me!" campaign. This proves what exactly? (I mean, other than your own "neutral" article that readily admits that Bezos doesn't really contribute much political money, despite how rich he is.
as it goes get ready Trump will win the election, for good or bad.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
whembly wrote: Also... some serious self awareness failure by HRC:
Hillary ClintonVerified account
@HillaryClinton
If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.
...
...
... Yeah... 'cuz, anyone under an FBI investigation is super sketchy maaaaan.
Well, to be fair those two things aren't really the same. Also, preventing citizens on the terrorist "watch list" from buying guns is fething stupid, especially given how inaccurate it has been found to be.
As an aside, I worked in a TSC facility years ago and it was interesting to say the lease.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
No, because I still don't give a feth what some dumbass on Twitter had to say and even less so what some editorial from some gak town in Alabama I don't care about nor live anywhere near to. Feel better?
as to Bezos like I said Allegedly:
Right, you're just asking questions.
as to this pretty neutral article, they kind of disagree with you.
Nothing on Salon is neutral in any sense of the word, especially when it comes to their hardcore love affair with Bernie Sanders.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/28/drudge_koch_soros_bezos_these_4_non_politicians_will_determine_the_next_president/
Jeff Bezos:
There’s a limit to how far PAC money can keep a candidate afloat (e.g. Jeb! Bush and Li’l Marco Rubio). For lack of a less conspiratorial word, every special interest needs a mouthpiece.
Not a known political financier, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos took a less direct route to political influence in purchasing the Washington Post in 2013. And though WaPo is a humongous organization, editorial leanings in the media tend to have a top-down effect.
Despite his nearly $55 billion net worth, Bezos has donated relatively small amounts to Democrats ($28,000) and Republicans ($4,000). Some, however, claim he’s similar to other tech entrepreneurs who support a libertarian, small-government platform.
The Post hasn’t formally endorsed Clinton, but its Editorial Board unmistakably condemned her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, in a January article titled “Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign.”
In the months since the Editorial Board’s unendorsement, the Post has been accused of repeatedly parroting Clinton’s agenda.
Okay, so the editorial board was rightly critical of Bernie Sanders' "They're all out to get me!" campaign. This proves what exactly? (I mean, other than your own "neutral" article that readily admits that Bezos doesn't really contribute much political money, despite how rich he is.
as it goes get ready Trump will win the election, for good or bad.
whatever its obvious your love affair for Clinton is strong and she can do no wrong, yet glossed over the article i showed where wiki leaks plans on releasing more of her emails. sorry but your love interest is not gonna win, me personally wish there was a better candidate running against her but we have what we have so Go Trump 2016 ! ! !
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Asterios wrote: whatever its obvious your love affair for Clinton is strong and she can do no wrong
yet glossed over the article i showed where wiki leaks plans on releasing more of her emails.
Yeah, that's because I don't really care about her emails so I don't feel like talking about them.
sorry but your love interest is not gonna win
See the above video.
Go Trump 2016 ! ! !
No one cares.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
TheMeanDM wrote: That is fethed up....we should have the freedom to vote for whomever we desire to vote for.
It actually makes some sense. If you can't meet the signature requirements to get on the ballot then you have zero chance of winning the election and counting write-in votes is just a waste of everyone's time. So instead of screwing around trying to count thousands of different write-in candidates (most of them obvious jokes), each with single-digit votes, you just toss those votes in the trash and only count the ones that matter.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
There is a cost implication of counting write-in votes.
Someone with a genuine chance of winning as an independent thanks to their high profile and successful campaigning would register and be on the ballot as a formal candidate.
Asterios wrote: whatever its obvious your love affair for Clinton is strong and she can do no wrong, yet glossed over the article i showed where wiki leaks plans on releasing more of her emails. sorry but your love interest is not gonna win, me personally wish there was a better candidate running against her but we have what we have so Go Trump 2016 ! ! !
The simple truth here is that the only people who care about Clinton's emails are conservatives who aren't going to vote for her anyway. People care about issues like the economy, foreign policy, etc. They don't care about a candidate's IT qualifications (or obvious lack thereof) because that's not something that has any meaningful effect on their lives. Most of them probably can't even explain in their own words what was going on with the email server or why it is a bad thing. And when it comes time to weigh "didn't configure an email server properly" vs. "wants to build a giant border wall to keep the icky brown people out" or "laughable fraud and failure at business" it's going to be pretty obvious which of these things are more important.
Now, this could change if there's any evidence that she set up the email server maliciously or for personal gain, but so far it seems to be nothing more than a case of "why you let the IT department do their job and handle your email security" that is only in the news as an opportunity for Our Guy to attack Their Guy.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
There is a cost implication of counting write-in votes.
Someone with a genuine chance of winning as an independent thanks to their high profile and successful campaigning would register and be on the ballot as a formal candidate.
Also, spelling. I suck at spelling and would probably screw it up. You then have to pay people to decipher/interpret what they meant, or is that the slippery slope to "Clanton is clearly a vote for Trump. He owns a Car Dealership in Clanton, AL."
Further, do you have to use all of a candidate's name? First, Middle, Last, Maiden? Most people don't know my middle name is legally "Runs-With-Scissors", after the Grammy winning album of the same name.
Peregrine wrote: The simple truth here is that the only people who care about Clinton's emails are conservatives who aren't going to vote for her anyway. People care about issues like the economy, foreign policy, etc. They don't care about a candidate's IT qualifications (or obvious lack thereof) because that's not something that has any meaningful effect on their lives. Most of them probably can't even explain in their own words what was going on with the email server or why it is a bad thing.
Sadly, I think you're probably right. I suppose it takes getting your TS/SCI to understand just how significant a breach of policy, ethics, and the law this was.
Then again? Joe Liberal still thinks Bradley Manning did nothing wrong, so I dunno. Maybe we should add "classified information" to "college and weed" when it comes to what progressives think ought to be free.
Further, do you have to use all of a candidate's name? First, Middle, Last, Maiden? Most people don't know my middle name is legally "Runs-With-Scissors", after the Grammy winning album of the same name.
I dunno about that... I do know that in Oregon a fair number of years back, there was a gubernatorial race in which Donald Duck was the 3rd place vote getter, and tops among write-in candidates
I would have to wonder about using a candidate's full name as well... because if you're writing in a candidate whose name is longer and has odd (for Americans) letter combos, like, say Eisenhower..... would you count a ballot that was simply written in as "Ike" ?
