Hm, so the minigun in Predator wasn't *quite* so ridiculous. Since we can grant Jesse Ventura an extra 50-75% strength since he was a fictional action hero, and since in action movies the weight and quantity of ammunition a character may carry (even if its's for miles and miles through a dense jungle) only matters if it is directly relevant to the plot, I think I now consider "Painless" a perfectly reasonable gun for fighting aliens and South American guerrillas.

You shouldn't 'have' to have career experience in government, but it should absolutely influence whether people vote for you.

When you vote based on 'feelings' and vague campaign solutions, you get people like our current President or former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura.

She seems extremely intelligent, which would lead me to believe she probably has some ideas on how she would like to resolve the issues of the city. I would have to hear more before I would say she is a good candidate though.

Congratulations! Your comment on Jesse Ventura Body Slams Elizabeth Hasselbeck has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on Jesse Ventura Body Slams Elizabeth Hasselbeck has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on Jesse Ventura Body Slams Elizabeth Hasselbeck has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on Jesse Ventura Body Slams Elizabeth Hasselbeck has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 12 Badge!

@bobknight33 --

I continue to agree with you on a lot of what you're saying (but not all).

Trump and Sanders are both riding a wave of frustration in the people, as you say. Their current popularity, even if both only go downhill from here, has already partially sent that message to both parties. I don't think Trump would make a good president, but if he wins the election I think that really hammering home that message of frustration could be a significant positive outcome. Same goes for some hypothetical scenario resulting in Sanders getting elected, although I personally feel quite positive about the other stuff that I think Sanders would bring to the table, unlike how I feel about Trump.

If there's one area where I think the government could stand to get *bigger*, it's in oversight, evaluation, and accountability. Being under the microscope and heavily scrutinized perhaps isn't a recipe for optimal efficiency, but I think we desperately need more of it in government AND the private sector.

Early in my lifetime, a large corporation that had a relatively benign monopoly by today's standards was considered a big enough deal for the government to step in and break it up. AT&T / Bell got split into the "Baby Bells". Corporations now are vast juggernauts compared to that, but since they make gigantic profits I guess we collectively see them as bastions of Capitalism. But I think that in reality they are doing much more harm to Capitalism with their monopolies, collusion, and corruption.

I think Sanders is the candidate most likely to even *try* to do something to roll back that shift, and bring back oversight and accountability to government. Hillary sure as hell wouldn't do it. And I don't think Trump would either -- he is the literal face of a gigantic Corporation himself, after all.

I had high hopes for Obama. He didn't live up to them, but to be fair I think the lion's share of that is on the Legislative branch. That taught me to be careful about putting much of any stock into Presidential campaign promises, particularly about things outside the scope of what the Executive branch can actually do.

I think Trump and Clinton both put *themselves* first, ahead of all else. I don't think Clinton gives a flying fuck about any of us plebs, beyond attempting to pander to large demographic blocks of us just enough to secure our votes. Maybe Trump cares more for Joe Average than Clinton, but only incidentally -- as a Capitalist he needs Joe Averages to buy his products, and buy into his image.

I don't get the same read from Sanders. I think he actually does give a shit. A lot of his agenda would require a cooperative Legislature, which he wouldn't get -- just like Obama. So in terms of changing the status quo, perhaps his biggest impact would simply be in sending the establishment a loud and clear message that we are no longer content with business as usual in Washington. A message very similar to what electing Trump would send.

It would/ will take me some soul searching, but assuming that Hillary gets the Democrat nomination over Sanders, a desire to send that message might be enough to get me to vote for Trump. But voting for a reasonably tolerable option from a minor party might serve that end just as well. Say Jesse Ventura running as a Libertarian, or Jill Stein from the Green Party. Stein has the very distinct advantage (from my perspective) of being the only current candidate who has said that she would grant a Presidential pardon to Ed Snowden (although Ventura would too, IF he runs). Pardons are one of the few things that a President can actually *do* unilaterally -- and that makes that a pretty damn good "single issue" prompt for my vote, in my opinion.

Great point at the end by Cranston: "Maybe it's time for a viable 3rd party."

I doubt there has ever been a more golden opportunity for a 3rd party to rise up than right now. Certainly not in living memory.

Half of registered republicans think that Trump is some sort of folk hero in the making. Nearly everybody else thinks that he would be a disaster of near-Biblical proportions. He might get a decent amount of votes from that crowd by people who "just want to watch the world burn", but still. Meanwhile, nearly everybody (including democrats) thinks that Hillary is a sleazy, status-quo politician. Her "supporters" think that she has the best chance of preventing President Trump -- apparently they don't trust polls that show Bernie Sanders being a much more palatable option for everyone, specifically in the sense that he'd easily beat Trump whereas Clinton vs Trump is neck and neck.

Basically, anyone who runs for a third party in this election stands a fantastic chance of doing better than one or both of the presumptive nominees from the two major parties. Jesse Ventura would get a LOT of serious attention in this election. Any other election, probably not so much -- but right now...

1/4?? I doubt that. Aside from Youtube and Jesse Ventura, you hardly ever hear from the 9/11 truthers anymore.

To put Edward Snowden and CHELSEA Manning on the same list as Ted Nugent, Ted Cruz, Jesse Ventura, Ayn Rand, Ron and Rand Paul, Alex Jones, and Wesley Clark is the biggest fucking joke I can imagine.

Those two are to be respected for their service to the American People and the Constitution. Those morons on that list don't belong in the same universe as Edward and Chelsea.

Downvoted before I even watched it because of your retarded list.

I admit that last part was a bit of trolling, and while I disagree with many things Jesse Ventura says, he's the only (non-)politician that would even attempt to bring some real transparency to Washington.

I wouldn't vote for him because of that, but I would vote for him because it would be a very entertaining four years.

Governors are privy to some secret and top-secret information (still requires a need-to-know) - so maybe he became a conspiracy "nutbag" after being elected governor... tip of the iceberg kinda stuff.

I do, but only because "nobody" = "no person". So that statement is technically true, even though computers (not people) are recording ALL phone calls, and doing speech-to-text, and looking for keywords, and those keywords being flagged as present in the metadata, and used by the algorithms. So yes, a court order might be needed for a human to actually listen to a full conversation, but it already goes way beyond the intentions of the old wiretapping laws.

Email, which is plaintext (unencrypted), should never be considered secure. The FBI used Carnivore before it was legal (Patriot Act) and continue to use electronic surveillance in every form possible. (within the secret "legal" framework and oversight)

I guess the only real controversy is exactly how many classified programs that congress knows about and approves of, and votes to renew regularly? How can the people know how their representative is voting if the ballots are done in secret?

Jesse Ventura 2016!

http://gerryduggan.com/post/38221649177/enough-is-enough

btw, I believe 99% of europeans watching this think it is Jesse Ventura and the people cheering his idiotic arguments that are FUCKING INSANE

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.