You have ZERO proof she was hired quid pro quo. Absolutely zero. Do you honestly think Clinton would risk any bad optics whatsoever if she thought DWS wouldn't help her win? That was the Rodman analogy. Clinton hired her to help win the election, not to regulate elections to be fair.

And even Sanders supporters said the nomination wasn't stolen. He lost. He lost mainly because he didn't appeal enough to minority voters. You have to take a massive leap of cynicism to make that claim.

You're making it sound like Clinton hired Alan Grayson. That's my point.

Then you magically transfer DWS's guilt directly to Clinton. Did Clinton do that, or did DWS? I'm pretty sure it was DWS. I hated George W. Bush as president. That didn't make me magically transfer guilt about the Valerie Plame incident directly to him because there's no evidence he was responsible for outing her as a CIA operative.

And again, you're also talking about the leader of the Democratic Party favoring a lifelong Democrat over a dude who just decided to join for a Presidential run. When I think of a candidate who is personally corrupt, I think of Nixon. He broke a law. Clinton didn't break any laws whatsoever. NONE! She didn't even do anything. DWS didn't break any laws for that matter. She shouldn't have done what she did, but good lord, you're blowing this way out of proportion.

How exactly am I helping Trump win? Because I'm gonna vote for Clinton over Trump, Stein, and Johnson?! You're gonna have to explain to me how I should help Trump lose. Do I vote for Trump?! Do I vote for some other candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning?

And all evidence does not argue against Clinton being the most qualified candidate out of the remaining candidates. She is BY FAR the most experienced candidate in government. You can sit there and rail about the hiring of DWS to help campaign all you want, but there is no possible way you can possibly make the claim that she isn't the most experienced out of the remaining candidates. She was the most experienced candidate among all primary candidates, too. That's an undeniable fact. All evidence at the very least doesn't say she isn't the most qualified. None of the 2016 primary candidates came remotely close to her experience in foreign policy. None of them came close to her experience in domestic policy.

This isn't to say experience is everything. But you're making a very flimsy argument about her being personally corrupt, and then claiming the ridiculous assertion that all evidence says she's not the most qualified candidate, even though she's clearly the most experienced.

And yes, we don't know how good or bad a President she would be. You also can't know if a specific Honda Accord will be more reliable than a specific Chevy Corvette either. That doesn't stop me from buying the Honda Accord without batting an eye if I want the most reliable car.

Only in this case, it's more like a Honda Accord vs. a lit on fire dumpster on wheels.

They should just replace her voicebox with a party favor.

Growing up in a radio Station, (my mom has worked in the same station my entire life), I have just always been around rock and roll. I remember meeting everyone that came through town, even Wolfman Jack on several occasions. There were so many, and I was young, I don’t even remember names…. You just don’t care at that age when you are around it all the time.

I used to get all the demo records to bring home. I remember at one of my birthday parties (10th?) I gave out 45s as party favors. (Five to each guest.)

My mom had a collection of 5-600 albums and several hundred original 45s with songs like “Robert Mitchum-
Ballad OF Thunder Road (1958), Janie Grant-Greasy Kids Stuff (1962) 45’s by Jan & Dean, Beach Boys, Buddy Holly, Big Bopper, Little Richard, Richie Vallens, Elvis and that era. I remember putting on CCR albums as young as 6 or 7 years old.

My personal first 45s were Kiss-Beth, Jerry Doucette-Mama Let him play, Eagles-Liyin’ Eyes. My first Albums were Kiss, Rock and Roll Over and Bay City Rollers.

Into grade eight, my favorites became stuff like, Billy Idol, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Kiss, ACDC, the Ramones, The Cramps, The Moody Blues, Meatloaf, Styx and so much more. At one point I amassed over 1000 albums…

I thinned my selection down after getting married thinning down to around 50-100 albums and cassettes and have regretted it ever since. Music has been such a large part of my and there is a story to go with every song I ever remembered.

My first Rock Concert was Red Rider, opening for them was (Don’t laugh) Honeymoon Suite !!!

Long live the Music!

>> ^jwray:
>> ^nosro:
Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.


Compared to Europe, both US parties favor more government entanglement in business, but less welfare. It's hard to place that on a liberal-conservative scale. I would prefer less government entanglement in business, but more welfare. Downsize the military-industrial complex, cut subsidies and tariffs, and promote alternative fuel with a pollution tax instead of pork barrel spending on pet projects.
QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.


They say Europeans distrust business (e.g. GMO), and Americans distrust government (e.g. wiretapping is controversial here, but in Europe it's done regularly).

The American parties' more relaxed approach to regulation of minimum wage and "quality of life" issues like the length of the work week seems to be a big part of US parties favoring less, not more, government entanglement in business relative to European parties.

>> ^nosro:
Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.



Compared to Europe, both US parties favor more government entanglement in business, but less welfare. It's hard to place that on a liberal-conservative scale. I would prefer less government entanglement in business, but more welfare. Downsize the military-industrial complex, cut subsidies and tariffs, and promote alternative fuel with a pollution tax instead of pork barrel spending on pet projects.

QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.

cupcakes for all! Party favors! Crackers!

(congrats!)

....great concept, this will get those kids off their lille asses, and out the door for some fresh air, eh/??..

....110 voltage, with resistance in-line, is a great party favor, too....take a lamp cord, separate and strip the sheilding, off the inner copper wire....put a light bulb in-line, then take the bare ends, one in each hand, and squeeze....the harder you squeeze, the brighter the light will become, and the more your muscles will contract from the voltage,....this may be the only resistance some may ever experience.......

and no, that is not how I got this way, either!...