Really?
Then enlighten us..... what's your rational explanation for keeping someone as National Security Advisor who Trump knew is a liar, someone who illegally coordinated with the Russians (on Trump's behalf, recorded but still lied about publicly) before taking office, and worked directly for them repeatedly but neglected to disclose that when asked under oath, (edit:someone so completely unprepared to be a National Security Advisor that he didn't understand that phone calls to and from hostile foreign diplomats are all recorded), and who Trump was aware is vulnerable to Russian blackmail and instead having him keep his security clearance and work with those same Russians for weeks?

I never talked about the nomination, only about liberals pointing out that Sanders would stand a much better shot at winning against Trump.

Yet Sanders not winning the Democratic nomination is sort of the point. The DNC and the talking heads had their mind set on a candidate from amongst their midst, and put their combined weight behind her. They went with a candidate who was vulnerable on just about every angle to attacks from Trump, due to her being a continuation of previous policies. That's not picking the candidate who stands the highest chance of winning the Presidential Election, that's picking someone who represents their own interests. Which is fair enough. But then don't blame the purist liberals for pointing out the dangers of this strategy.

Thing is, we know the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign. Even more details of this are coming in bit by bit through discovery during the class-action lawsuit filed against the DNC. To call the Hillary Victory Fund a money-laundering operation for the Clinton campaign might even be too kind by now.

We also know that they actively pushed for Trump to be the nominee, thinking the election would be a cakewalk then. Brilliant strategists, the lot of them.

And the same people are running „the Resistence“ now, doubling down on what they did before. How is that for learning a lesson. Instead, they play the blame game. And Maher, in this clip, jumped in and blamed „purist liberals“. Not the DNC, not Clinton for running a campaign based on platitudes, clichés, and everything except policy substance.

If you want to blame the purist liberals for anything, blame them for not having campaigned hard enough, for not having put enough pressure to either get their candidate nominated or to get Clinton to at least pretend to be willing to do something about the suffering of the lower class. Blame the liberals for being content with a few improvements in social policies while swallowing economic policies that cause a continuous degredation of the standard of living of the lower class.

Still, purist liberals kept saying that the antidote against right-wing populism is left-wing populism. Sanders was not vulnerable on policy issues. In fact, this 187 year old bloke with bad posture is nigh untouchable on policy issues. When even Trump voters in West Virginia admit that a guy from the Northeast is a better advocate of theirs than local Republicans, you know his policies are not open to attack from right-wing populists.

As for purity vs pragmatism: pragmatism is a label for the policies that led to the current state of affairs. It's the policies that led to large-scale devastation across the country. It's not pragmatic to vote for more of the same if it means a continuation of policies that led you into despair. Purity is the label talking heads apply to a principled stance when they don't agree with it, plain and simple. Both labels allow them to distract from discussions about policy substance.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Everything-We-Think-We-Know-About-Addiction-Is-Wrong

To be fair, addicts do bear some responsibility for their disease (although you could make the same argument for some cancer sufferers, e.g. smokers).

But even if they got the disease in a moment of vulnerability, that's still no reason to treat them the way we do.

A brief bit of google fu shows that in the anime she's naked? Is there a point to that other than cheap titillation?

I can see where it could add to a feeling of vulnerability, I guess, but it feels like the movie makers are trying to have their cake and eat it.

Anyway, I've never seen the original anime (not a big anime fan), but I thought the suit looked ridiculous in the trailer.

Everything else looked pretty cool, especially the weird spider geisha thing.

Your video, How to tell if you are vulnerable to CIA hacking tools, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@transmorpher
then i mispoke,or you didn't understand.
i was addressing large swaths of history,so if it appeared i was making 'all things are fair,and equal" argument.

i apologize.

how about this:
at this point in history,it is islam that is by far the greatest threat to liberal democracies across the globe.they are threat to the process of democracies,and an even greater threat where they hold positions of political power.

the impetus and motivations that help promote,and therefor create a religious form of an echo chamber,which exponentially increases populations vulnerable to fundamentalist interpretations.either by force or fear,must be challenged.

always,and without reservation.
because to sit back and do nothing.....
/points to the dark ages.

that better?

i have no fear of drawing MO,nor calling out bad theosophy and even worse politics.

i am a man of faith,and my faith dictates my politics.

so i hoped i cleared that last bit up,and was clearer with my words.
goodnight man,i am whooped.

@ChaosEngine
never going to happen.
the obama administration has been waging war against whistleblowers for 8 years.prosecuting more whistleblowers using the archaic "espionage act of 1917" to pursue and prosecute more whistleblowers than any other president in americas history COMBINED.

unless there is a massive public outcry to force the executive branch to pardon snowden,it is never going to happen.

but as long as we are making a wishlist to the fairy godmother of shit-that-is-never-going-to-happen,let me add to that list:

1.repeal the NDAA of 2017,which is an addon to the NDAA of 2012,which is a simply continuation of the MCA of 2006 (look em up folks,those "rights" you claim to have are really mere suggestion due to these abominations.

2.pursue and indict ALL wall street players who knowingly engaged in fraud and collapsed the global economy.strip them of all begotten gains to pay back the american people,and throw them in the most vile of maximum prisons (hopefully with a bunkmate nicknamed 'anal destroyer").

3.recind ALL expanded powers that the bush administration enacted (thanks to neocons addington and woo) and which the obama administration actually expanded even further,and NOW trump will be executive over the most powerful executive branch in american history .(this would be a nice one eh?).

4.have the DEA and ATF actually honor obamas original statement that his administration would not pursue federal law in regards to marijuana,mandated by referendums by the citizens of those states (to which he had promptly disregarded,and raided local dispenseries).

5.reduce americas prison population(2.4 million,largest on the planet) by pardoning the non-violent drug offenders,and disallowing companies like nike and apple to abuse prison labor (slave labor).

6.stop the practice of military intervention at the behest of corporations to exploit the poorest and most vulnerable.

7.stop the practice of regime change at the behest..oh this is becoming familiar...corporations wishing to exploit the poorest and most vulnerable for their resources.

8.and could we possibly,maybe..stop with targeted drone strikes? a.k.a "assassinations". how a constitutional law professor reconciles his law pedigree with his "value target tuesday" i.e:murder just boggles my mind.

man,i should stop.my wishlist is becoming to long..and depressing.

i voted this video up because i will not ignore that obama did some good,and even some great things during his presidency,but i also will not ignore his very disturbing failures.

and there are a LOT of disturbing failures.

so i will sit and hold hands and sing kumbaya as we all remember our very smart president,but let us not forget..this very same president expanded an executive branch that trump will be taking over the reigns very soon.

and on that note,i have to give him a failing grade.

I have to strongly disagree with her last points on the recounts in Wisconsin etc - if there's an appearance that the results are in any way suspect, a recount is entirely reasonable. It's quite well established that many of the electronic voting machines in use throughout the country are in fact vulnerable to tampering, and if we can document any instances of that actually occurring that's only for the good. We *shouldn't* have full faith in election results when they're susceptible to manipulation, and should audit them regularly (either when things smell funny or just randomly).

Funny story, out of my own stupidity I made my WIFI vulnerable and somebody used my connection without my knowledge to download some obscure swedish war movie. A few weeks later I get mail from a bunch of lawyers and ended up paying 300 bucks for that shit.
You want my WIFI password? No, but if it's a real emergency you could use my computer while I watch.
Not an emergency? You can always go home if you're bored by me.

There's a reason that shit is password protected. I'll lend you ten bucks but I won't tell you my credit card's PIN. I'll give you a lift but I won't give you my car.

At first I thought he was overreacting slightly, looks like she was just trying to slowly, but dickisly force her way in.

But on second viewing she appears to have been completely ignoring the fact he was there, either deliberately or through ignorance. (I could't see her look at the biker even once and he was in the blind spot)

Either way that behaviour could easily prove fatal at higher speeds. And even at the speed they were going serious injuries are entirely possible, I nearly broke my wrist once merely dropping a bike (Yet walked away from a 40mph spill because life is strange like that).

I know motor-bicyclists may seem like whingy bitches sometimes, but we are absurdly vulnerable to ignorant assholes like this.
At the very least, this plays on the sub-conscious heavily and even minor slights can sometimes feel like attempted murder at the time.

Another time and place she might have caused a serious incident, so I'm glad she got a stern talking to at the very least.

But yeh, this is small fry in the grand scheme of things. I usually just move on, but had I been filming and then run across a police car.....I might well have done the same here. (Though I do make a big point to stay out of blind spots these days as most car drivers don't bother to check it)

I did not get that impression at all. In fact, what I saw were some truly kind people unable to say despicable things directly to two women who they admired and liked.

Do you really think they would have no compassion towards to a man who had been raped, and who then made themselves vulnerable to the general public by revealing that rape to advance a discussion?

I'm sure there are some men who have been shamed about their feelings their whole lives that they would joke in that moment. I can see that happening. A defensive nervous joke to mask the pain. To deflect the discomfort.

It wouldn't be funny though. Not funny at all.

These types of instructional videos aren't meant to be perfect. They are meant to instruct. You can pick them apart, and minimize the impact by saying all these rationalizations.

I'll tell my reaction. I cried. I cried for these men who so obviously did not want to say those things directly to the living breathing person sitting in front of them. They weren't thinking. They were feeling and reacting like the humans they are.

So the problem is shitty writers? Fair enough, but I think shitty writers of Superman outweigh good writers by a significant ratio.

In fact, the only writer I've ever seen do a truly good job with Superman was Alan freaking' Moore. The problem with Superman isn't that he isn't relatable, it's that it's hard to give him an interesting challenge.

Batman is at his best (story wise) when he's vulnerable and has to solve a problem. It's hard to write Superman without him just being more powerful.

Not quite a phalanx cannon, but still nice and scary.
So helicopters have different vulnerabilities. They can hide better from electronics and stay out of range of many identified targets, but are far more vulnerable to all kinds of ground fire, including small arms.
Nice, so basically a small aircraft mounted cruise missile.

Quite a lot of nations have old soviet Shilka's which do those supercomputer calculations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-UnealTR-Y
You get within 1.5 miles of this thing, and it chews up anything that isn't jinking.
There are also variants of this thing which have missiles, and they can even shoot down other missiles to protect itself.
For those it's better to fire helicopter missiles from a low angle. Or bomb them from up very high.

Helicopters are less vulnerable because often they can fire without revealing their position. Modern missiles can be fired from as around 8km away. And they'll fire them while hovering low enough that their radar signatures can't be distinguished from the ground and surroundings. And since they are always facing the enemy their heat signature from the engines is facing away as well. (unlike a warthog that will show it's engines to the enemy as it flies up and away after an attack). Most attack helicopters have some kind of armour as well. At least in the pilot and critical sections.
Oh yes, and something really cool - the new Apache Longbow's can fire missiles that go around terrain to hit their targets! Super cool

They absolutely have disadvantages, but any decent pilot will fly their aircraft to it's advantages

What? Helicopters are LESS vulnerable? How do you figure? They're vulnerable to small arms fire from ground troops, unlike a Warthog (unless you have a super sniper around that can do supercomputer type calculations in a fraction of a second and hit it on the fly with a 50 cal. depleted uranium round). They can pop up and down behind cover and do awesome targeting tricks, but in my eyes, for every advantage they have, there's another disadvantage.

But then you hit the nail on the head. Drones do it ALL better, for exponentially less, without putting a highly trained pilot in danger. I think it's just plain dumb to make piloted planes when we have working drone tech. For the current cost of the R&D on this single plane, not including the cost of building a single working F-35, we could have 1.3 million drones (+-, if we make that many, I'm sure we can make them for <$1 million a piece) and own the skies of the entire planet for eternity....or at least until Skynet takes over. Drones are far cheaper to maintain, don't have the G-force limitations human pilots do, can do far more dangerous jobs because we can afford to lose them, etc. We should never make another fighter that has a pilot IMO....maybe not any kind of military fighting plane.
I also love the A-10, but I've never had to fight in one. That cannon though, so satisfying.