If you can let your dislike for Adams rest a bit you would realize he is no trump supporter just an expert judge of character and an astute observer.

The other three TNG movies were awful, absolutely, but I think First Contact actually played pretty nicely alongside Roddenberry's vision.

We get to see flawed humans building a warp ship out of an old ICBM, there are questions of humanity (Data) and vengeance (Picard) and on top of that, it still manages to be a fun action spectacle.

Of course, arguing over taste is pretty pointless as it's entirely subjective, so you're perfectly entitled to dislike the movie, but I don't think it's fair to say that First Contact was as dumb as you say it was.

This trailer has none of that. I'm just hoping that Simon Pegg is a good enough writer (and he's a brilliant writer, watch World's End for evidence of that) to write his way out of the complete fucking mess that Lindelof wrote them into.

No, I actually try hard to not read ANY biased stuff on either side, since it's all time wasting propaganda with an agenda...but I understand why you might think that. That does mean I have not read much from Clinton's camp either, so it's no surprise I missed it.

Yes, I agree that many charges thrown don't hold water, but some do, some might, and many more appear to because of her dismissive way of addressing concerns. I do push back when I hear claims against her that are pure fantasy, I'm not a Sanders fan AND a lie fan, I'm a Sanders fan because I hate lies, even when they help my cause.
BUT
Because most people don't give her that much, it doesn't matter what reality is, she's thoroughly painted as a dishonest self serving windsock, and nothing is going to change that perception for the masses, and it's the perception that matters come election day. You can be sure the worst smear campaign ever is coming at her, and she can't stand up to it by being dismissive. She's already tied for most disliked candidate EVER!

No, I think they should go to a contested convention and calmly debate who is the better candidate to win, and nominate that candidate, like they normally would. I just think that candidate is obvious, and it's not the one the DNC is going to let win.
(EDIT: There's a reason that the person who's 1 delegate ahead doesn't just 'win', because that person might be unelectable even if they're the favorite. That's why the threshold for victory is way more than 1/2 +1)

I'm doing my best, by contradicting anyone who says it's over. It's not an easy road, but there is a road to his victory, and an easier road to that debate on who's better to both win, and to serve the voters. I contend that both answers are Sanders.

Yes, I think the world is in horrendous shape on nearly every front, and I want it to be different....I want it, and us, to be better. I think everyone should. If you don't continuously try to be better, you undoubtedly are getting worse.
I think of myself as a realist idealist. I want people to try to do the right thing, but I understand that not only can all people not agree what that right thing is, but that it's actually not the same for everyone, and sometimes one person's 'right thing' denies another person's 'right thing'.
I don't look for purity, but when it's presented, I don't turn away either. Purity is a rare commodity, one that should be cherished if found. I see it in Sanders.

You're a vegan -and not a douchebag-. Please help ahimsa understand why everyone a bunch of us dislike them (no clue as to gender), and how your attitude will win over people long before theirs ever will.

You are really digging your own hole deeper. It is exactly this attitude that makes people dislike vegans. We are, by base nature, predators. We reside at the top of our food chain, barring accident or stupidity, because we are superior to the creatures that would (and do) eat us if they are given a chance.

If you choose to give up your birthright won through millenniums of evolution to be an apex predator, that is your option. Those of us that are comfortable with our predatory natures will still be chowing down on the food that we like. Sorry if it hits you in the feels.

No problem with vegetarians.

No problem with people taking it further and working towards universal vegetarianism.

I dislike your attitude and lack of tact, not what you had for lunch. I don't dislike you because you're a vegan, I dislike you because you're a douchebag.

@ahimsa, @transmorpher

You might as well cry out against nature, because if you think humans are barbarous and cruel, nature owns us. Watch a video of a pack of lions eating a wildebeest alive sometime. I don't think they anesthetize it, pretty sure the animal thinks being eaten alive is torture, and I think it qualifies as murderous. This goes on daily, right this minute in fact, and the reason it happens is because there is a portion of the lion's instinct that is designed to like meat.

Chimpanzees will eat meat, sometimes going out of their way to find it and pull it apart alive. They don't need to biologically, but they are coded to.

Vegans avoid meat because humans have managed to reach a point of civilized society which allows us to have lofty moral opinions. I guarantee you however, that if society broke down and you couldn't get your hands on processed food with that special hint of paprika, you would have your hands out for a venison steak or pork hindquarters.

Therein lies the hypocrisy that annoys most of the non-vegans, you guys DO have this faint whiff of "I am superior to you because I don't participate in murder" when the fact is that you would eat meat if you had to. You don't see humor in being lightly made fun of, because it punctures your balloon of superiority.

In any case, the point of this entire thing is that if you choose to be vegan, awesome! Laugh a little if people poke fun at you and don't always try to sound like a stuck up ass if they don't agree with your choices. I think you'll find that more people will quit harboring dislike of you. Quit treating your personal dietary choice as a religion and don't try to convert people to it. If they see you living your life as a vegan and ask about it, then you explain it to them. Don't huff and puff while people eat meat around you and act like it is your job to convert them to the 'true way'. Life will be a lot simpler for you!

I base how I've done it on the rules, which say " Down voting is useful for when you find something you really don't like or just feel does not belong on VideoSift."
I have to really dislike something to downvote it though, I don't use it for things that just aren't my taste.

I won't ever downvote a video just because I disliked it, I'll move on to the next one. If I downvoted it means I think the video doesn't belong here, or in one case that it doesn't belong anywhere.

I did actually dislike this one rather intensely and, like @enoch, look forward to future submissions from @WeedandWeirdness

Enoch, no, I was not offended by the down vote, just his way of expressing his dislike, which now does make sense if he was just trying to be a smart ass. Same with me, with my smart ass remark back. Sorry that I didn't feel at all respected with his comment, that is why I presumed it as being offensive. Then his following actions proved to be spiteful. I never attacked his intelligence. I think this is a misunderstanding, but I won't tear others down to make my point.

I will check out your link, and I appreciate your comments, kindness, and advice. You rock doll!!

What you think...is your problem. A mind can be a terrible, or banal thing.

It was an expression of the dislike or your insipid submission sufficient for me not to waste enough consciousness to finish watching it as is proper and mandatory for a downvoting which is what it deserved. I only gave it any attention as people that I like and respect gave you attention and thought to endeavor to give you a chance. No good deed goes....

You did provide the motivation to revisit the repulsive submission.

Your reactions, submission,...will not likely waste my consciousness again.

As to that individual being one sided in your view. You resemble your remark. He is intelligent, incisive, and predominately objective and even handed. Your perception to the contrary is as telling as, well,...doll.

A downvote on a video means a person disliked it. We are all welcome to our own opinions here. I didn't like this video, but I also didn't dislike it enough to downvote. That is MY decision to make.
You should not take it as a personal affront if you get a video downvote, and you should certainly not respond with insults.

I dunno... as much as I dislike Bill O'Reilly, that showed a pretty encouraging amount of self-awareness and savvy comprehension of some of the root issues that are tearing the Republican party apart.

And the Democrat party establishment better be taking notes, because plenty of their base are upset about the same sorts of problems with the system. Next time, the "nightmare candidate" that the status-quo-loving party elites just can't shake off might be on the Democrat side...

I think that the GOP is in full-on panic mode, and doesn't care about legitimacy / shot at winning for this election.

They (the party elites) will do absolutely everything they can to prevent Trump from getting enough delegates to lock up the nomination. Hence Colorado and Wyoming. Those actions make it seem like they prefer Cruz, but actually they dislike him close to as much as they hate Trump.

Although it is still mathematically possible for Cruz (559 delegates) to get enough delegates to lock up the nomination (1237 needed), realistically it is out of reach (826 still available). Trump (756 delegates), on the other hand, could well manage it. So, the GOP strategy is to avoid that at all costs by encouraging people to vote for Cruz or Kasich in primaries, or even better to encourage more state GOP offices to hold a smoke-filled room convention that grants all the delegates to #NeverTrump instead of even bothering to let people vote.

If they manage that, the contested national convention will get ugly. They (GOP elites) would turn on Cruz instantly -- cast aside. In any other election cycle they would have turned on him already, but with juggernaut Trump, they have to use him to get to the contested convention.

So the question becomes who if not Trump or Cruz? Who will the GOP try to push in? I think that right now, they aren't as worried about answering that question as they are about trying to get there. That being said, they have some options:

Mitt Romney was their first thought. He took some tentative steps towards playing along with the GOP plans, failed to generate any excitement, and has since faded back into relative obscurity. But he remains an option.

Next up was Paul Ryan. A lot of the GOP see him as the future of the party; the "great white hope". There was a flurry of activity making it seem like he was going to take up the flag, but has since denied that he would be interested in or even accept getting the nod. However, he was cagey and close to as vocal against getting the nod to be speaker of the house, and then accepted that. You never know.

Kasich would be another option. He's relatively benign, and wouldn't offend many more of the republican base than the GOP is already ready and willing to offend in order to prevent Trump (and to a lesser extent Cruz).


Of those, I tend to think that Romney is the most likely choice for the GOP in the end. I think it would be extremely stupid to foist "future of the party" Ryan into this election, which would certainly taint his political future. Kasich makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- as long as the GOP is willing to go to these great lengths to keep Trump out they might as well just own the illegitimacy of it, shoot the moon, and hand pick someone that a) they have complete control over, and b) has nothing to lose in terms of political future. Voila, Mitt Romney.


I also don't think that the GOP will just throw in the towel if Trump locks down the number of delegates needed for the nomination. I'm sure they already have some last-ditch, scorched earth preliminary plans in place for that contingency.

However, I think that they essentially already have thrown in the towel with regards to the election in general. At least to a sufficient degree that they don't give a rats ass about the chances for whoever is the republican nominee winning. That's a *distant* priority behind NOT TRUMP, among other things. Which is pretty stupid, because the likely nomination of Hillary on the democrat side gives them what should be a *golden* opportunity to steal the election. IF they could come up with a vaguely tolerable candidate ... which they won't.

Cenk WAS a denier of the Armenian genocide and wrote a paper back in his school days in which he put those beliefs to hard paper. Despite him having named his network after a group responsible in said genocide, he is quite adamant that he has changed his opinion and admits younger him was wrong.

I've not looked close enough to say if he's reformed or not, but the entirety of his personality and behaviour today is so jerkish I strongly dislike him regardless of if he's reformed from his 'worse' past.