It's obvious. She was despised by people who spent decades trying -- and failing -- to pin criminal charges on her.
The failure to find anything in itself proves just how guilty she is.
At least, I think that's how the logic works. Can't double-check because my brain just shut down in protest.
So the DNC calling reaching out to the Hispanic community "taco bowl engagement" is not racist?
No, because it's explicity mocking the racism and ignorance of Trump, who thought that a photo of himself eating a "taco bowl" (WTF even is that) was a great Cinco de Mayo message.
How about election rigging?
Didn't happen, unless you're talking about, say, Republican voter suppression in North Carolina.
You don't need to be a Trump supporter to be disgusted by arguments like "Any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump", or "If you voted for Trump for any reason you're a racist."
People can be disgusted all they like. If people voted for Trump, either they're racist, or they excuse racism. It's not like he kept his racism hidden.
Obama has no reason to pardon her because there is no evidence she did anything deserving of criminal charges. And Comey has been trying to find evidence for 25 years.
Quite right. The Trump campaign wasn't just about appealing to racists. It was also about appealing to sexists, homophobes, islamphobes, and anti-Semites. Pretty much the entire neonazi platform. I'll be sure to get it right next time.
Anonymous Coward (but seriously we know who you are) wrote:
Voting for a racist no more makes you a racist than voting for a murderer makes you a murderer.
You really picked a perfect example there.
Just perfect.
Your racist ran on the explicit promise of racist policies. His newly appointed "chief strategist and counselor" is an avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist. So your vote means you don't give a shit about the targets of those policies. Which makes you, at best, an enabler. A collaborator.
To continue your analogy: You voted for the murderer whose campaign was founded on explicit promises to murder more people. You don't get a pass on that.
This is hopefully the administration that proves that the alt-right view of "limited government," i.e. "let corporations run amok and drop taxes on the people who actually have the money" is utter twaddle.
That's not cause to celebrate.
This isn't some abstract intellectual exercise. The cost of this proof will be huge, and will be borne disproportionately by those who can least afford it.
The United States Copyright Office has completed development of a new electronic system to designate and search for agents to receive notifications of claimed infringement, as required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
I'm inclined to think the real reason for this is that their new electronic system is not designed to import data directly from the old directory.
In my book and even knowing now, he's Conservative, he belongs and needs to be seen in any list supporting Clinton. He would most likely accept $1500.00 to attend another public gathering to create chaos for the insane idiot Hilary Clinton. Considering the historical events following her, he would most likely end up dead and in a ditch somewhere.
You need a new book. Perhaps one that doesn't require you to see everything through a political lens.
And one that doesn't encourage embracing delusional conspiracy theories just because they reinforce your point of view.
Until or unless there is evidence to support this, all this speculation does is make people more paranoid and more like to panic at nothing. And panicky people are dangerous. A panicked crowd is especially dangerous.
I'm inclined to think people are perfectly capable of behaving foolishly without any help from nefarious outside forces. I'm also inclined to think that's what happened here.
(Although the constant ZOMGTERRORISM encouraged by govt isn't terribly helpful either.)
On the post: Fighting For The First Amendment Is Going To Be A Priority: Help Us Do It
Re: Is this a joke?
uh, no. That's not what their letter said at all.
You really shouldn't believe everything Dear Leader Trump says. Even he said you shouldn't take him at his word.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
Re: Re:
Jim wrote:
It's obvious. She was despised by people who spent decades trying -- and failing -- to pin criminal charges on her. The failure to find anything in itself proves just how guilty she is.
At least, I think that's how the logic works. Can't double-check because my brain just shut down in protest.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, because it's explicity mocking the racism and ignorance of Trump, who thought that a photo of himself eating a "taco bowl" (WTF even is that) was a great Cinco de Mayo message.
Didn't happen, unless you're talking about, say, Republican voter suppression in North Carolina.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People can be disgusted all they like. If people voted for Trump, either they're racist, or they excuse racism. It's not like he kept his racism hidden.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
Re:
And Comey has been trying to find evidence for 25 years.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
Re: Re: Who was most despised?
Does that help?
On the post: Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
Re: Really need an edit button
A temper tantrum, then, worthy of a 2-year-old. Congratulations Toddler Nation.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
Re: Re:
On the post: Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward (but seriously we know who you are) wrote:
You really picked a perfect example there. Just perfect.
Your racist ran on the explicit promise of racist policies. His newly appointed "chief strategist and counselor" is an avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist. So your vote means you don't give a shit about the targets of those policies. Which makes you, at best, an enabler. A collaborator.
To continue your analogy: You voted for the murderer whose campaign was founded on explicit promises to murder more people. You don't get a pass on that.
On the post: In Wake Of Trump Win, ISPs Are Already Laying The Groundwork For Gutting Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re:
That's not cause to celebrate.
This isn't some abstract intellectual exercise. The cost of this proof will be huge, and will be borne disproportionately by those who can least afford it.
On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory
The truth will out
On the post: Here's The Truth: Shiva Ayyadurai Didn't Invent Email
Re: Re:
WDS wrote:
Which created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat.
On the post: Copyright Office Fucks Over Thousands Of Sites With Plans To Remove Their DMCA Safe Harbors
New system
I'm inclined to think the real reason for this is that their new electronic system is not designed to import data directly from the old directory.
On the post: Car-Freshener Wields Little Trees Trademark To Bankrupt Non Profit That Helped Ex-Cons And Recovering Addicts
Re: Re:
That Anonymous Coward wrote:
Who is more sociopath, you or the company that trademarked a stinky tree shape and then sued a tiny nonprofit out of existence?
On the post: Shake Up At The Copyright Office A Possible Preview To Fight Over Copyright Reform
Re: Government jobs...
https://twitter.com/eriqgardner/status/790976997153538048
On the post: Actor James Woods Gloats Over Death Of Random Twitter Troll He Sued To Unmask [Updated]
Re: Anonymous Coward
You need a new book. Perhaps one that doesn't require you to see everything through a political lens. And one that doesn't encourage embracing delusional conspiracy theories just because they reinforce your point of view.
On the post: 'Nice Internet You've Got There... You Wouldn't Want Something To Happen To It...'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And panicky people are dangerous. A panicked crowd is especially dangerous.
On the post: 'Nice Internet You've Got There... You Wouldn't Want Something To Happen To It...'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(Although the constant ZOMGTERRORISM encouraged by govt isn't terribly helpful either.)
On the post: 'Nice Internet You've Got There... You Wouldn't Want Something To Happen To It...'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey now... What you do in the privacy of your own domain is your business.
Next >>