Jill Stein(Green) and Gary Johnson(Libertarian)
are both running.
...


Yes a third party will split the vote. That is the point. It gives people the power to choose the issues. It forces a realignment of the parties. If the effected party doesn't change or adopt the third parties views, they will consistently lose. If they do change, then the third party can die out having been successful.

Parties have failed before. The US wasn't started with Democrat vs Republican. As I see it it's past time for both the Democratic and Republican parties to die out. The long term benefits from a realignment of the parties platform is well worth the temporary disaster of a Trump presidency.

I sincerely don't think Trump would be worse than Clinton. He is a buffoon with little support in the government, and would be unable to accomplish anything as president. Hillary on the other hand has the ability and will to continue the transfer of control over our government away from its citizens.

Trump winning would be a true embarrassment and a great motivation to switch from "first past the post" to another voting system. Hillary winning... more of the same BS ad infinitum.

I'll be voting for Jill Stein if Bernie isn't the Democratic nomination. Regardless of the outcome I'll know my vote, no matter how insignificantly small, supported the end of the Republican/Democrat duopoly.

Note that he bets 2010-2020 will be THE hottest decade ever recorded, and not just among the top 10 hottest decades. This is how we know the warming is significant, the more data (ie longer timespan) , the more clear the trend is. Individual years might not be THE warmest, just because they are the latest, but if you measure in decades, this is almost certainly the case. it would be an even more slam-dunk case if you bet with centuries. This is also why deniers sometimes literally use snowballs to prove GW isnt real, because if you go for local weather on a particular day, you can "prove" anything, but the amount of data in your "research" is insignificant.

I like that little extra shell-ring thingy he's got on the shotgun you can see him using to reload right before the slow motion bit. I've never seen one of those before and at first I thought he was pushing a mis-fired shell back into the chamber (or whatever you call it in a shotgun, the breach?), which asking about was the reason I started this comment until I watched it a third time.

I've never fired a semi-automatic shotgun (or any kind of shotgun since I was 15 or so) but I do recall a 12-gauge having a not insignificant amount of recoil, and I've heard from a SWAT guy that semi-automatic shotguns are frowned upon because people in panic-firefight-mode tend to pull the trigger too fast and end up shooting the ceiling. He seems to have no problem though.

That's a nice strategy they got going there but it's fairly shortsighted. If you're mainly killing and terrorizing muslims, you're gonna run out of muslim supporters one day.
The same people whose families and friends you enslaved, raped and murdered won't help you.
The muslims that are somewhat moderate and far away from you will begin to understand that you are their biggest problem now, image wise and direct threat once your reach is big enough to touch them. They won't help you. They will look after their own interests, mainly deescalation.
Muslim nations will start seeing you as a problem as you hurt their economy, just consider how important tourism is for Turkey. Rich people will loose money. Money means more than faith.
Those true believers have many martyrs willing to die for the cause. The world has enough bombs for each one of them. No matter who presses that button.

They will fail. They will become insignificant or extinct. Somebody new will come along and fail as well. Repeat.

I completely agree that the guy is just playing a role. It's fox news after all. He may not actually believe the shit he spouts.

but a non-insignificant amount of the geriatric fox viewership undoubtedly believe what he says.

No, I mentioned those few officers that had not seen the criminal action (and so not ignored it), they are just such a tiny minority that they are statistically insignificant. I gave them...and the non-corrupt forces an incredibly generous 10%, even though I believe the true measure is closer to <2%. I have yet to see an independent investigation of any police force that failed to find rampant criminal behavior force wide. I conceded that they likely do exist...somewhere...but they have yet to show themselves, and appear to be quite endangered if not extinct.
Whistleblowers do show up, but in such tiny numbers compared to total law enforcement that they statistically don't exist at all.
I understand that's your position, I just disagree. Ben Franklin was talking about private citizens VS law enforcement, and you have twisted it backwards. Those IN law enforcement have a higher duty to be honest, non-violent, non-criminals. Do you not agree? And please understand no one has suggested putting them all in prison based on a presumption of guilt...which is what Ben Franklin was talking about...the court of public opinion is a different matter. Also, in practice, assuming that all law enforcement is 'bad' and are untrustworthy liars actually lets far more innocent 'escape suffering', since they are the one's making the (often enough, false) charges. Just something to think about.

OK, let me try another tact. Do you think it's OK to put all members of a mafia crime family in prison, even though some may have done little more than honest accounting work? Well, I'm not suggesting prison, or even replacement, just meaningful, independent oversight EDIT:with real teeth. While I would LIKE to replace all officers (including the 'good' ones, let them all re-apply with stricter standards) and start fresh, I do see that that's not in any way reasonable or feasible...the best I can hope for is a change in behavior and a change in how we treat them...to one of zero tolerance for any professional malfeasance.
OK, once again, there is a statistically insignificant population of law enforcement that is totally 'pure' and not criminal. They exist. Because law enforcement as a group has become SO corrupt, they will be lumped in with the rest in public opinion until they prove themselves. There comes a point when the presumption of innocence is so damaged by a particular group of like minded individuals (which excludes by race, as a race is not 'like minded') that it no longer makes sense....and I'm far past that point. I now presume they are all trained liars (and I contend that's true, all of them, 100%, it's part of the job, and another way they're 'bad', but that's another discussion altogether) and that they'll lie to and about anyone they come in contact with. It's a terrible presumption to have to make about a group of people, but the only logical one to make since the alternative so overwhelmingly often leads to severe suffering for the innocent.

What a monster. Both guys are so deserving. Both in their 30's!!

On a less joyous note, I take pretty serious issue with the way ANW runs the competition. Once I found out about the original Sasuke, I went back and watched every single season. Because it's awesome. But I feel like the Japanese organizers of Sasuke clearly understood that the competition was "competitors versus course", not "competitor versus competitor". In that vein, any set of competitors who complete the course should be equally rewarded.

Can you imagine dedicating your life to completing that course, succeeding (as one of only two people in the world, over nearly a decade of competition), then walking away with nothing because the other guy was an insignificant amount faster than you?

Props to Isaac for at least mentioning "share the money" in the post-interview (not included in this sift).

Another way I massively disagree with ANW is that they significantly redesigned the courses for every year of competition. Some variation is essential to testing the competitors' adaptability, but with so much new stuff each year they excluded lots of top talent due to bad luck or running order. Cynically, maybe to avoid paying the prize money. Last year was particularly bad with only two guys making it to stage 3. I feel like this year the pendulum swung back a little too far (or maybe "farther than intended") which is why they actually had two winners. That said, that new cliffhanger is ridiculous, but at least it's a variation on existing obstacles instead of something totally unique.

Lastly, let's not forget ANW's "USA versus The World". Really? That's so stereotypically American it's sick, especially for an adopted competition.

Closer to the truth would be to assume this (or some other physical abuse) happens at least 3-5 times a day in every major metropolitan area, not once per day in all the US. 9 out of 10 aren't caught on camera...and 9 out of 10 of those that are caught on camera are erased by the perpetrators themselves (the cops). It's only when a private citizen records them and doesn't get arrested themselves (and have the recording destroyed) that we see these videos , and that's multiple times a day (yes, we've seen exactly that happen repeatedly, destruction of video, often recorded by another, unseen citizen that comes to light after the cops lie about the incident.).

When a group commits violent crimes every single day without fail, and those in the group who are not being violent stand behind those that are, then this IS the norm, not an outlier. Sorry.

No, doing your job doesn't erase evil violent acts....neither does committing a 'good' act. If it worked that way, we wouldn't need jails, because nearly 100% of criminals have also done good things in their life, if that erased their crime there would be no need for cops at all. EDIT: Even doing 'good' 10 times as much as you do 'evil' makes you evil, not good, in my eyes. 100 good deeds do not erase one evil deed.

This is not the actions of a few, it's the actions of many, perhaps even the actions of the majority of officers, with the backing of ALL other officers and the force itself. That makes them ALL complicit, with the exception of the tiny, statistically insignificant few that actually report their fellow officers...and they get driven off the force by the majority of other officers that won't stand for 'snitching' by harassing, stalking, threatening, attacking, and not backing them up when they're in danger doing their job.

If ANY other group of people did the kinds of crimes cops have been caught on tape doing just this year alone, we would outlaw that group, seize their assets with RICO, and put most of them in jail. When cops do it, at best they usually get a paid vacation and a pat on the back.

Consider my error a gracious gesture to you insignificant being. In the grand scheme of things they (and you) don't matter.

Go hug a tree or save a polar bear. Better yet save a child from abortion.

The % is from his words 700,000 transgender. USA has approx 320 million.

http://www.census.gov/popclock/
your 147million comes out to near .02% still insignificant.

The only time .02% matters is when you are one of the .02%. So no- you don't matter in the real scheme of things. There are bigger problems in the world than seeking a seat at the table of equal rights.

And the next insignificant minority to be placed on the liberal mantel of change--- Transgender Rights. Because the 0.0021% matter.

The issue for you is not "change", but that society would "capitulate" for "such an insignificant demographic group" of "less than 4% of the population", correct?

You cited this Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles) of how many Americans were in same sex marriages.

Another Gallup poll shows the historical trend of religious self-identification in America from 1948 to 2014: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

In 1948, the proportion of respondents who self-identify as either Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jewish, is 95%. ~5% said "None" or didn't answer (less than 0.5% said "Other").

In following years, they tracked more detailed responses and grouped some as "Christian (nonspecific)" and Mormon, and changed the Roman Catholic grouping to just Catholic.

In 2014, those who specified a religion (which is everyone except those who said their religion was "None" or didn't answer) represented 80%.

The full statistics are in that link -- these two years are endpoints in the polls, but not outliers.

Thus, over 66 years Americans who identified as religious (not all of whom follow the Bible, but most do so I'll be generous to you) lost 15 percentage points. That's a rate of 0.227272 percentage points per year.

If Americans keep leaving religion behind at this same rate, in 2348 all religious people will represent less than 4% of the population.

Then we get to trample your rights, right Bob?

"Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population. "

We are talking about letting two people marry each other, in what way exactly is this capitulation?

The gun fondling nutters in the NRA make up about 1% of the population. Personally, I think their obsession with guns is rather perverse and more than a little creepy. Why cant we just take away their right to bear arms? They are just 1%! why should they have the same rights as other people?

Mormons are like less than 4% too, Take away their freedom of religion! No need to give them the same rights as catholics?

The "change" is not the issue for me. Its the tail wagging the dog that I am asking about.


Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population.

And for gay marriage the % is even less than 1% The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change?

IF the word gay is clouding you thoughts change it ti KKK, NAMBLA, Black supremacist or any another insignificant demographic group...



To answer you question the very definition of marriage would change.

Instead of you BS just answer the simple question.

Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population.

And for gay marriage the % is even less than 1% The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change?