Shadow Hawk

Disgusted by the boos for Elizabeth Warren. She has the most liberal voting record in the Senate...more liberal than Sanders.

Ok, Al Franken was funny.
 
"At Trump University you'll learn from success experts like Scott Baio"

I think that attitude is frankly insane. The people likely to be most badly hurt by a Trump presidency also happen to be the most reliable Democratic voters. Why cheerlead for their suffering? Also it assumes that things would progress in a direction that would be ultimately favorable to progressive interests, which isn't necessarily the case.

Yes but why is that a scandal?  Did people expect the party brass to be neutral to the non-Democrat who came in to try to take over?   If so, why?  

It was so hot here yesterday that two hobbits threw a ring into my backyard.

Well, in-between the time periods of the two series would likely be best. Lots of unexplored history in that interim era. If you put it post-TNG, then the tech starts to really get a little bit too miraculous to believe any obstacle is major for them.

I'm a little bit confused. Who were the likable, competent, highly appealing candidates in 1988, 2000 and 2004, again? This is not an unprecedented situation.

Liking the person you're voting for is a privilege/perk, not a right or entitlement. Mostly agreeing with their policy agenda is sufficient, for most cases.

I'm only going to say this once and then I'll shut up.
 
A vote for Jill Stein, or any vote for a third party, is a vote for Donald Trump.
 
Trump knows he's not going to get the vote of Sanders supporters. And he doesn't want them. All he wants is for Hillary not to get them. If that happens, either by the votes going to a third party candidate or the voters just staying home on election day, he knows, he doesn't think, HE KNOWS, he'll win!
 
So unless you want to see Trump as President, do what I'm going to do.
 
Hold your nose and vote Clinton. No matter how bad she may be, I'm not afraid of her having the nuclear launch codes.  That should be reason enough but if you need another try this one on for size …

Fear is the path to the dark side.  Fear leads to anger.  Anger leads to hate.  Hate leads to suffering.
 
Yoda

Just because he's openly undermining NATO?
 
The sieg-heils above are examples of terrible gotcha journalism.  If you want to make these people look bad, all you have to do is report what they say into the microphone.
 
Quick convention recap:
 
A VP pick was announced after Trump realized he couldn't renege.
Opened with a chaotic voice-only "vote" to shut out #NeverTrump.
Delegates from a couple of states walked out.
KKK and WBC throwing urine at each other outside the convention hall.
Multiple examples of plagiarism.
Campaign completely fumbled handling of the plagiarism "crisis".
Speech plagiarist finally found.  She is an employee of the Trump corporation, not of the campaign, so if she really did write the speech, several campaign laws have been violated.
No one of consequence is actually willing to speak at the convention.
Cruz not only didn't endorse Trump, he admitted afterward that the personal animosity between them is very strong--so why did the Trump campaign give him a mike?
Trump openly questions NATO, emboldening its enemies.
 
Did I forget anything?

I think Trump just promised more free stuff than Bernie did. Bringing back all lost manufacturing jobs, ending crime and violence, massive tax cuts, defeating ISIS rapidly, etc.

Sam the Eagle, for the one comment, "All of you are werid."

This may have been posted already, but given the turn the discussion has taken, I believe it is relevant--
 
Dan Savage On Jill Stein--but it could apply to any third party as well.

Yeah...problem with that:  Obama stated (and Patrick verified) that they had shared the quotes prior to Patrick's speech -- i.e. Obama had shared the quotes with Patrick and they both used it.  That's not plagiarism.
You'd be better referencing Biden during his presidential bid...and he dropped out of the race because of it.

No, I actually think you're spot on. This is the Tea Party "Blow It All Up" movement writ large.
 

I guess I'm weird. When it comes to standards I expect people to live up to, I have higher ones for cops than I do your average citizen. And I certainly expect police to behave well above the standards of criminals.
 
Given such things as civil asset forfeiture, police brutality, and a murders by officers of the unarmed.... it seems I expect too much

And...how is that sad?  Yes, obviously more people are killed by civilians than cops.  It would be very strange if that was not the case.  The difference is when a civilian does it without a sound legal justification, that's a crime.  

If by "misleadingly presentd," you meant to type "not misleadingly presented at all," then I agree! The rate is per million, and not absolute. Since there are fewer blacks than whites, it can be both true that more whites are shot by police, and that the rate per million of blacks being shot by police is higher than whites!
 
If by "sad part" you mean that it's sad that most people are killed by friends and relatives, that is certainly a sad thing. (So, blacks by blacks, whites by whites, Albano-Greek Americans by Albano-Greek Americans, etc.) Murder is always sad. You know what else is sad? Being shot by police is sad. The police are supposed to be there to protect us, and we should really make some kind of effort to prevent it.
 
Obviously, there are cases where police-involved shootings are all but inevitable. It's the cases where it's not --you know, twelve-year-olds with toy guns, unarmed men pinned down by several officers, law-abiding citizens pulled over in "driving while black" type encounters. That's where there's an argument for oversight.
 
Or we could just smear them all with guilt by association. That works too. For a certain value of "works." 

Meh.  I'm okay with Hillary. 

If the law for speed limits stated that you needed to show either intent to cause harm (modifying US C 793 here) or gross negligence, then no you shouldn't.  
But that's not how the speed limit laws and regulations are written.

No it isn't because he wasn't.  Clinton was accused of sloppy storage of classified information, and was given a pass because it could not be established that she understood computer security well enough to grasp the security vulnerability of what she was doing.  General Petraeus on the other hand took actual physical top secret documents home and deliberately showed them to his uncleared girlfriend.  The two things are not the same.  Clinton risked a security leak.  Petraeus committed one.  Note, that that former attorney general Alberto Gonzales (not in the Obama administration) deliberately took top secret documents home and kept them there, before taking them back and putting them in a Justice Department safe that uncleared persons had access to. He was also not charged with anything even though the NSA were not happy campers.

yeah, the All Lives Matter response is pretty stupid. Because the implication has never been, "Only" Black Lives Matter, but rather Black Lives Matter "As Well." 
 
In the media it's always us vs them with a throw away line about being in this together.

Yup. 
I'm sorrowful, but I'm also furious. Innocent cops died, and scummy cops will use this as an excuse to claim this proves their own brutality is 'necessary'

Puss.. In Boot!