Don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump? How about this woman who says Wi-Fi melts kids' brains? According to a recent poll, just 10 per cent of Americans are excited about voting for either of the two political parties' presidential candidates in November. As a result, serious attention is being paid to other candidates. And in this case, that is Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party. …
This post has been deleted by its author
No, people are already quite mad and what's worse, they keep throwing Pokéballs at Him. Thus the Great Elder One got bored, is now sulking in his undersea palace where walls meet at impossible angles and is commiserating with P.U.T.I.N. on the phone (thanks $ABRAHAMIC_DEITY_OF_CHOICE for fiber optics).
Please let Shoggoths crawl all over D.C. because I just can't stand the permanent hysterical whoring and freak show anymore.
That's easy, he cares for the 100% and has a tentacle beard.
This post has been deleted by its author
You are completely bananas, Bernie and Trump have absolutely nothing in common apart from both of them being in their 70s. Trump in the Oval Office is the fulfilment of Putin's wettest dream. The chaos that would ensue in the western world would be cataclysmic both economically and societally. For Obama to essentially to wipe the floor with him in the White House during a totally unrelated press conference speaks volumes about the trepidation there is about this ignorant twunt getting into office. We're one week into the actual election and he is well on the way to alienating the sensible republicans (I know there ain't many) he just refused to endorse Speaker Ryan and McCain in their upcoming elections, he sees it as payback, but then he is an 8 year old.
"He'll be in office for the next 8 years unless the parties - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Commie, whatever - hurry up and find an electable candidate for 2020."
Hmm, better change the constitution then. Getting the job of president isn't enough.
If someone is the type of person who is highly capable and motivated to do some good for the country, standing for president is pretty much the last thing they'd decide to do. Why? Because if they got elected they'd then almost certainly run information the problem of not being able to push hard decisions through congress.
Result - none of the really good people bother to get involved. America's loss.
Both Bernie and Trump talk nonsense like the Golden Girl with no impulse control. They say whatever stupid shit that comes into their heads or what they think will get them elected.
OTOH, most politicians are like that...
Both represent fringe elements that need to be ejected from their respected parties. Both aren't really members of the parties they are running for. Trump is just an attention whore and Bernie is too afraid to properly label his party affiliation.
Bernie and Trump have absolutely nothing in common apart from both of them being in their 70s."
Actually they are probably closer to each other than either is to Hillary. Both have similar attitudes on immigration such as depressing wages in the US and taking American jobs, especially from younger Americans. Both are oppose free-trade whether it's NAFTA or TPP. They both have a similar style of fiery rhetoric.
See for yourself.
like Hillary. She has changed her position on many things to try and get elected.
Even when she was the First Woman (she has never been a lady or even civilised) her ambition for the top job was obvious. Her self-interest outstrips the Donald's by a very wide margin.
@GeekGoat
"Trump remains the only sensible option, though. No hidden agenda. He can't hide anything with that ego or mouth. You know what you get upfront."
"Plus, his [Trump's] more extreme actions will be rendered harmless by congress and the senate (so Obama found out)."
But don't you find those two statements a little incongruous?
The fact that so much that comes out of his mouth is 'extreme' and, as you say, highly unlikely to get through congress and the senate, what then is his actual agenda? What policies does he have that are going to make it through?
The problem is not that he has a 'hidden' agenda but that that his 'agenda', such as it stands, seems to be to get elected by appealing to the prejudices of disturbingly large sections of American voters. To say that he does this shamelessly is an understatement.
But what happens if he does win the Presidency?
By your admission, and that of even some long-time supporters, many of the 'policies' he has shouted into his echo chamber are not going to eventuate - so how will he actually function as a president? He has no experience in politics, save giving money for favourable treatment, and his personality and inter-personal skills are hardly such as one would hold up as a model of decorum or diplomacy.
How will he be able to interact with congress, let alone foreign governments and heads of state?
The bluster and beligerence he wears like a second skin may make him popular with a certain subset of people domestically, but what will be the result when that 'ego' and 'mouth' - neither of which he seems willing or able to suppress - becomes the face of the US rest of the world? How can someone who loudly and unapologetically promises to prevent Muslims from coming to America work productively with the many Muslim allies the US enjoys? Not to mention, you know, a few mildly important Gulf nations.
What will discussion with the EU look like, given his support of the opinions of Nigel Farage and his claims that the UK are experiencing their 'independence day' and his position that, now that the UK is out from under the rule of the bureaucratic EU, everything will be better?
Because that, at its heart, seems to be Trump's core platform: that everything wrong with the US can be fixed by making the US, well, a bully. And that's what people supporting him are really supporting - his bullyish attitude. Far from being a concern, his arrogance and unwillingness to ever admit a mistake, much less accept culpability - preferring instead to double-down - appears to be what his supporters are attracted to, because that, seemingly, is what they want the US to be.
They are Andrea Tantaros' "America is awesome" turned into a political force. They are the idea that anything America does is, ipso facto, right and so any admission of error or - heaven forbid - apology is anti-American.
Not that I like Clinton a whole lot more as she is a model of the duplicitous, self-interest that pervades politics is nearly all countries. In that regard she is similar to Trump. The important difference - if it must be one or the other - is that she actually experienced and has proven herself able to exist in the swirling an complex world that is international dimplomacy.
What has he said that is extreme?
That the USA should pull out of the middle east and stop senseless wars there?
That uncontrolled migration for the sake of cheap salaries should be controlled?
That the corporations are moving American jobs to 3rd world countries, China, Mexico, India?
What? what exactly, I want examples out of the horse's mouth.
Because so far I haven't heard anything that is not within the powers of POTUS.
I'm no fan of Trump (I'm no fan of any politician, they're all crooked aristocracy in my book***) but nothing that the man has said so far is too far from what a silent majority of people think.
I think Trump gets bashed by the MSM relentlessly in stark contrast with the lack of coverage of Clinton's shenanigans. (BBC Propaganda much?)
***If you want further proof check any leaked information about a bunch of politicians, including but not just the DNC leak.
I am sorry, Mr. Sanders, but it seems you are not paying attention.
Regarding your question of: "What has he said that is extreme?" I can think of several weird and oddly strange things Trump said:
1) "Why don't we give nuclear weapons to South Korea, so they can fight it out with North Korea?"
This is not quoted verbatim, but it is the gist of what he said.
Now, may be Mr. Trump loves to see a "good fight", but may be that was not such a good idea.
2) "It's ok that Mr. Putin took over Crimea." Now, again, my quotes are not verbatim, but as a candidate
for US president, you should think before you talk. It may be ok for some drunk dude in a bar to say the very same thing, because "ya know, who the heck wants to fight for that god forsaken island in the black sea, which was russian several times over, and changed hands at least 20 times in the last 1000 years!?
(I was wrong here, I am sorry: A drunk guy in a bar would never ever know that the friggin' island was
russian several times and did indeed change hands more than 20 times in the last 1000 years).
But, geopolitically, strategically Crimea is important, because it provides the russian Navy a harbor that is
OPEN 12 months out of the year. (Many of the northern russian harbors freeze over in winter, which is nice for the West, but not so much for the Russians. See. some things are a bit more complicated.)
3) Trump said something disparaging about Nato, saying, roughly "Why are all these, or some of these small Nato countries not contributing at least 2% or 3% of their Gross National Product GDP towards defense? They are freeloaders, and the US pays for their defense! May be I wouldn't defend some of
those small states, if they don't pay."
Well, once again, it is not as easy as that: Some of the smaller Nato countries, say Greece, etc. are not paying because they already have trouble paying their teachers, garbage collectors, pensions, and so
forth. Next, and even more importantly, the well-off nations in Europe are continually buying the bonds
of the USA, which translated into Trump-level speak, they lend the United States their extra cash. And not only that, they are more or less expected to do so, why, because this is what keeps Nato and
other things going. And in addition, think clearly, can any off these European nations go and cash out
the US Bonds? No, because that would destroy the market for these bonds. So, whenever some of these US bonds mature, they role it over into new US bonds, to keep the "them doggies rolling". It's
sort of like when you borrow money from your dad, and your dad is not going to ask for it back, because that would cause you to default on other loans, and what not. You can research this via the various websites of both Fed and foreign central banks/governments. 5th grade math is sufficient to add things up. Overall, it is not that hard to understand these things, if someone explains them in clear language. As a result, for a person like Trump to not know and understand these things is utterly stupid for a presidential candidate.
4) There are several things like "senseless wars" and "continued outsourcing" that Trump may be right
about. I give him that. There was a politician in the 1930's who was right about building German freeways, and who was trying to make "Germany great again" after WW1 and depression, etc., but we can all agree that the means and methods he used were, overall, not that right, and not that good.
"He means well" and "at least he is honest" were not his slogans, if I remember this right.
5) The silent majority, what does it think? I am not sure it is the majority, or else Trump would get 70% in the polls. And what does it silently think, this majority? 'I hate foreigners, and people of other races, other religions, and them terrorists, and I hate the government, and I am angry because I have a bad job, or no job, and I am mad as hell, and not gonna take it anymore." Is that it?
There were numerous statements by Trump that were incoherent and discriminatory on the basis of race, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and on and on. And he was incapable of even understanding and learning that what he said was not proper in the context of running for president. So, you want a person who shows themselves "proudly as ignorant" and "incapable of learning", "incapable of apologizing" and living in his "own imagined bubble" to be president of the US? A person who openly attacks judges, who makes absurd racist, pigheaded remarks, who pretends to be more successful than he really is, and who generally shows that he does not give a damn about anyone else? I do not understand the average Trump voter.
6) None of the above means that I'd vote for Hillary. I'd like to say that many accusations against her were "trumped up", but now that Trump has destroyed the meaning of that word, I'd have to find a better one. But, let's take things one by one: The Benghazi attack: An intelligence failure to not anticipate a terrorist attack on one of the US embassies around the world. Who is in charge of overseas intelligence?
Is it the secretary of state, per se, or is it the CIA, secret service, and the US military, etc? Now, how often has the CIA and US military failed to anticipate something, under both Republican and Democrat administrations? More times than I can count. Secondly, terrorist attacks are surprise attacks, prepared in secret by secret participants. In the best conditions, these are hard and even impossible to predict. So it's not a particular failure by Hillary herself, and that's that.
Next: Hillary's e-mails: a) I delete about 25 e-mails a day, mostly junk or stuff I don't need anymore.
So 25 x 365 days x 4 years = 36,500 emails deleted. So, there are Hillary's 30,000 deleted emails.
Everyone does that, except for people who don't know how to delete an e-mail. Trumped up agian.
b) I understand that Hillary sent and received official possible sensitive government e-mail, unencrypted, without password. To me, this is fairly ignorant behavior. No excuse for that. But I also learned that many members of congress, senate, CIA, FBI, military, foreign embassies, have indeed sent sensitive data on unencrypted e-mails without passwords on regular e-mail systems, on a regular basis. This includes sensitive data sent by higher level CIA officials. This includes both republicans and democrats. So, I conclude that all these people are guilty of the same stupidity that Hillary committed, and it is possible that the Department of Justice did not indict her SIMPLY because then they would have to indict half the government. That's how smart our government is. Un-smart. The more you know, the more you shake your head.
May be all this makes sense.
LOL actually Trump is looked apon by the right wing in the republican party as to liberal , the republican tea party movement hate him with a vengeance and those are the back stage players trying to stop him from within , Clinton is another cuckoo in the nest and to be honest I don't see her as any less worse or better than trump .
1. both have less than stellar pasts.
2. both are no stranger to corruption and failure.
3. both would be a security risk trump through stupidity and Hillary through negligence.
Still Mr. trump never had one of his advisers steal documents from the national archives like Samuel Berger.
Trump might destroy the future but Hillary will rewrite the past so she makes sure she does not get the blame.
SO although many down voted you for suggesting TRUMP is the best bet , using Donald and best in the same sentence precludes putting Trump in there ...maybe Duck.
But there is no best option both are equally scary as a president
Me too. But here is my 2 cents worth about anti vaxxers:
I am vaccinated. My kids are vaccinated. My parents were vaccinated. OK, that should tell you
that I am not an anti-vaxxer.
The first explanation is totally unscientific. A child/baby that was already on the way to be autistic
gets vaccinated. There are side effects. Cramps, contortions, screaming, blue in the face, etc.
The parents go through this, and then after the child is diagnosed autistic, they go through a full on
"post hoc ergo propter hoc" conniption. Meaning, they believe that since the bad stuff started right after the vaccination, it must have been because of the vaccination. Easy mistake to make. Now if the same thing happens per chance several times in one smaller community, people get together, and talk, and
compare notes, and before you know it, the anti vaccination movement is born. Add the internet, stir and
it makes 1,000,000 servings of a great conspiracy theory. That's one way of looking at it.
The second explanation is a bit more complicated:
a) Since we scientifically know and appreciate as a fact, that a properly working immune system is necessary for vaccinations to work (meaning, a working immune system has to react and produce the antibodies, that actually make the vaccination work.),
AND,
b) since we also know that in this day and age, some babies will be born with a compromised, or not yet
fully working immune system (in part because nursing a baby from the mothers breast is not even considered "proper" anymore, in some parts of the world at least, such as USA),
AND
c) as we know for a fact that the immune system of the mother literally gets transferred via the mother's
milk, which does not happen without natural nursing,
AND
d) doctors and hospitals willl want to vaccinate the baby as soon as possible after being born, in part
due to legal liability concerns, (Baby dies unvaccinated, you pay, baby dies vaccinated, you're OK).
it could potentially dawn upon us that the vaccination of babies with compromised or not yet fully developed immune systems could lead to a variety of unexpected side effects.
To this day, I think, no specific method exists to determine whether the baby is either
"immune compromised" or "not yet ready for vaccination". Correct me if am wrong on this.
Because, I am not a doctor, and I don't even play a doctor on TV. But trying to reason things out
has always fascinated me. If what I know is wrong, or incomplete, then I am wrong, of course.
Yet it's always nice to be right, in an effortless genius sort of way.
HAHA! She can't sue any pretend deity, so any product manufacturer will do! It's how morons operate; "everyone else is at fault, my mind is workoring perfuncktly. God is a real guy, and you can't sue him for money, yet all the churches seem to need more money and to not pay any taxes."
It's a fuckfest for fuckheads.
Kids would be much better off interacting with each other, doing stuff outdoors and developing dexterity by making stuff[*] than sitting in front of a BoobTube,web browser or smartphone.
[*] and I DON'T mean assembling the pathetic snap-together so-called 'kitsets' sold by Toys R Us and similar purveyors of dumbed-down junk. They should be using real, sharp tools to shape parts and nails, screws and glues to assemble them. Or riding bikes/building trolleys and learning not to fall off them. After all, if you're older than 40 that's what you used to do, so why on earth would you want to deprive present day kids of the fun of gaining those hands-on skills? Don't give them a kite: show them how to make their own so they can feel the thrill of having something they made fly and fly well.
And actually, I think this article (uncharacteristically for El Reg) is a bit of a hatchet job.
Dr Stein is in no way, shape or form an anti-vaxxer in the sense that that McCarthy woman is, say. She has worries about the committees that regulate and approve vaccinations -- which seems like valid concern in a country where corporate lobbyists have their finger in every single pie. But that is a far cry from suggesting it causes autism or whatnot.
Likewise, I just took her statement about WiFi to underline her broader argument that "It would be better for kids' development to not spend all their time looking at screens". Obviously ubiquitous WiFi would tend to increase that slice of kid's time. The fact that she points out again, correctly, that regulators and public safety committees are stacked by corporate interests, is hardly the same as believing WiFi melts brains.
The article starts with an observation that, certainly compared to earlier editions, the current election cycle has many Americans looking beyond the two major parties. Maybe do them, and everyone else, a favour and not blindly assume that all third party politicians are fringe lunatics.
"Don't give them a kite: show them how to make their own so they can feel the thrill of having something they made fly and fly well."
Seen that first hand.
I once showed a neighbour's son (about 12 years old) how to build a sled kite from a bin liner and a couple of sticks (plus tape) I wasn't sure if he was just humouring me while cutting and sticking, but at the end after flying it he asked if it was OK for him to keep it?
I was genuinely surprised, how easily we forget the pleasure of actually making something and not from expensive kits.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
